Response Paper to McCloskey's article Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Response Paper to McCloskey's article - Essay Example He goes ahead to suggest that due to lack of proof the notion of Gods existence should be dismissed altogether. Moreover, looking keenly at the arguments he puts across it lacks substance, one of those is existence of evil, which he says it is a proof God does not exist. This kind of argument lacks merit because one can say that if presence of evil things is a proof of Gods non-existence, what about the existence of the good and what it proofs. The article has not answered this query. McCloskey believes that the cosmological argument was an argument from the existence of the world. McCloskey also states that believing in an uncaused first origin of the universe is issues because nothing about our universe leads us to that believe. However, many of us may disagree with this because we believe that God is the fundamental factor of the origin of the universe. Furthermore, scholars and philosophers term that the universe is contingent; therefore, the universe requires a necessary being t o acts as an ultimate cause. Finally, this necessary being is God.His article represents his own thinking and that of atheism but does not proof anything. In his article, he puts emphasis on the point that evident proofs of nature cannot adequately elucidate the existence of God. ... He seems to be comfortable with naturalistic ideas. McCloskey points out these objections against the cosmological argument stating that the fact that the world is real is enough evidence not to believe in such a higher being as God, but Evans and Manis puts forward the following argument in response. They say that for a contingent being to exist then there must be a necessary being that causes the contingent being to exist contingent beings exist, therefore if we are the contingent beings then God must be the Necessary being. The only fault in this response is that they do not have evidence to proof their argument (Evans and Manis, 2009).. They response to the issues raised by Mccloskey to their arguments by pointing out that atheist assertion that the universe has always survived. Manis and Evans counter by stating their approach is enough for such a challenge since they do not make any suggestion as to the age of the universe. The other issue raised by Mccloskey is that if everyth ing has a cause, then God must have a cause as well but Manis and Evans counters this by saying that God is not a contingent being, therefore His origin cannot be known and it is unnecessary to know and that is why He is God. The main challenge to this is naturalism, this is because naturalists hold a notion that things exists at natures will and have no cause but on the same breath they cannot explain why beings exist. McCloskey points out that cosmological argument by saying that he does not sanction us to assume an all-mighty, all-perfect, all-powerful uncaused being which causes other beings. Evans and Manis accepts that this is debatable, They further note that even if the argument is held as