Running Head: Response to Atheism 1
Response to Atheism
Mishal Preston
Liberty University
Professor Williams
PHIL 201-B06
October 16, 2017
Response to Atheism 2
Abstract
As children of God we all have free will, and with that free will, we have the right to believe or
not to believe in a God, no God, or multiple Gods. There are multiple religions in the world but in this
essay, we are talking about only two of them, Atheism and Theism. Atheism is defined as the belief that
there is no God, or denial that God or Gods don’t exist. We reference an article titled “On Being an
Atheist,” written by H. J. McCloskey. McCloskey is an atheist who tried to find “proofs” that there is no
God based on imperfections and evils to name a few. Theism is defined as the belief in one God who is
creator and ruler of the universe. C. S. Evans and R. Z. Manis Philosophy of Religion is considered in
respect to theism, they discuss that there is no way there are “proofs” that there is a God; because God
cannot be 100% proven.
Response to Atheism 3
In regard to McCloskey’s argument on “proofs” to definitively establish a case for God in light of
Foreman’s presentation, I would have to say that McCloskey referring to the arguments as “proofs” is
his believing that he has the answers to all pertaining to the existence or nonexistence of God. The
definition of proof is, “anything serving or tending to establish the truth of something, or to convince
one of its truth; conclusive evidence”, or just simply, “the establishment of the truth of something.” He
believes that his thoughts and beliefs can give an all-out PROOF to the non-existence of God, when all
he does is argue his point of view based on his own beliefs. It is not possible to prove whether or not
God exists 100%, no matter how many questions are asked, answered or doubted. There is no
conclusive evidence to prove one way or the other. The only hard evidence everyone on earth knows of
is the Bible, and even then, questions arise as to the belief of its contents. I think that the only way that
he can see the world, with the negative outlook he has, is as evil, and until he can be open minded
enough to see the world from another point of view, whether Christian or not, he will only see the bad
in the world, which if he paid any attention to this world we live in, we have brought the majority of
evil, not God.
Perhaps someone more like myself could shine some light into atheists’ beliefs; I am a born Christian, I
believe deeply in our Father, however I still have my own thoughts and questions as he does just as he
states in his article pertaining to pain and suffering, but I have also seen many miraculous things in life
that can only been explained by, as some would say, the Grace of God. If McCloskey read the book of
Genesis he would gain knowledge as to why men are sinful. As we all learn in Sunday school as children,
God gave man free will, allowing us to choose for ourselves. Adam and Eve chose wrong. And for that,
we all are born sinful. God then gave his only son to die for those sins, to save us from such sin and we
as His children remain sinful until baptized in the blood of Christ, repent and walk in the light of Jesus for
the remainder of our mortal lives.
McCloskey’s claim that the world does not constitute a cause for him believing in God is quite
confounding. As beings with knowledge, we know that every contingent being has a cause for being, a
Response to Atheism 4
child’s cause for being is their parents, a houses cause for being is the architect and builders, an
inventions cause is the imagination of the inventor, therefore, the universe also a contingent being,
must have a cause. Nothing is just simply there. Evans and Manis tell us that “contingent beings require
a necessary being as their ultimate cause”. As we learned earlier this semester, a necessary being “is in
no way limited by or dependent on any other being”. Therefore, since the universe is a contingent
being, it must have a necessary being and the only logical definition of a necessary being is “God”.
McCloskey claims the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-
perfect, uncaused cause.” However, it only touches the basics on the knowledge of God, it is far from
complete, and if after review of this single simple area pertaining to the understanding of necessary
beings, you feel you have all the answers and have figured out necessary beings, then I feel you need to
gain further knowledge in regard to the knowledge of God.
The teleological argument, or argument from design, argues that due to the universe’s
appearance and order, there must be a necessary being behind its existence. As mentioned earlier, the
only logical definition for a necessary being is “God”. Therefore, McCloskey’s standard of indisputability
is far from conclusive and not reasonable. We have already determined that understanding contingent
or necessary beings cannot be founded through proofs, so “genuine indisputable examples” are not
probable. Evans and Manis talk about “Aquinas’s “Five ways” of proving God’s existence, and beneficial
order is one example of the five ways I am going to talk about. As I had mentioned before, nothing is
just simply there. And for there to be so much beneficial order in the universe and our world alone, you
would think someone or something with great intelligence would have had to design it. Some claim that
this order could be simple coincidence, but those odds are extremely slim. Evans and Manis use
machines as a perfect example to why beneficial order can’t be a simple coincidence. History has proven
that human intelligence has grown significantly, for example; we grow from the DOS computer program
to the newest windows programs and internets growth from dialup to wireless. With growth and
Response to Atheism 5
intelligence of these magnitudes, it is reasonable to conclude that there has to be necessary being
behind the existence of the universe and everyone and everything within it, and that necessary being is
God. Evolution is an intelligent form of growth, and all intelligent growth comes from God. As with
machines, humans have “bugs” that must be worked out to improve their design. Therefore, over time
God adjusts in order to better His design, just as humans adjust the machines or programs we use. In
order for it to not interfere with their free will, He programs every soul before birth with a level of
possibilities it can evolve to, but it is in their mortal life that they decide whether or not to reach for
that potential. God has a reason for all His children in this world, and if we follow His path, we can all
evolve to the level of possibilities He has laid before us. McCloskey’s claim that imperfection and evil
argues against “the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world,” is irrational. If we
look up the definition of divine, you will see it means “of or like God”. From this definition we are told
that God created man in his image, which we also learn as Sunday school students. God is said to be a
perfect being, and when He created the Garden of Eden and Adam he them as so, perfect. He felt Adam
needed a companion, so He took Adam’s rib and made Eve. God gave His perfect design free will, the
option of choice, the option to think for themselves but put rules in place for them to follow. They
decided to disobey God, and it was then that they became imperfect, however still made in His image,
but far evil. God believed in His children so much that He wanted them to choose correctly without
being told what to do or how to act. God Wanted his children to be perfect, but by their own choices.
Evil and imperfection are a far cry from the same, evil is derived from Satan’s work or man’s choice, not
God’s, and imperfection is only there by the grace that God gave his children free will, the will to think
for themselves.
McCroskey’s objection to theism being based on the presence of evil is not a valid conclusion.
As mentioned earlier, free will is a powerful thing and God made man with the ability to think and act of
their own volition and be as Evans and Manis states “morally responsible agents, capable of freely doing
Response to Atheism 6
good by responding to and loving their neighbor and their creator.” Even though God made man in his
image, he did not make them perfect. If man was made in the image of a machine or robot, it could not
be considered freedom or free will. Evans and Manis call this “pseudo freedom”, a state in which man
“would never do anything wrong”, make any mistakes or commit any evil; that “the freedom of these
things would not have been real”. As I mentioned before, evil is derived from Satan’s work or man’s
choice, not God. “God desired to make creatures who would freely love and serve him” if not he could
have designed perfect contingent beings to “freely choose right all the time”, but then we would be
considered robotic beings, and not beings of free will. God designed His children with free will as
explained by Plantinga so we could be persons with “genuine free choice”.
McCloskey argues that atheism is more comfortable that theism, and that theism should
actually be a miserable belief system. He believes that it would “be easier to deal with harsh things if
you believe in no God, rather than try and reconcile a perfect God”. Craig tells us, “without God, man
has not become free of religion, but rather that man found themselves as orphans with no point and no
meaning, and that without God, man’s life becomes absurd.” Craig argues that not believing in God is
much more depressing than even being an atheist, and that it is absurd to believe there is no God
because believing in God is more comforting then not. Without God in our lives, there is no meaning or
purpose in a mortal life.
Response to Atheism 7
References
Evans, C. S., & Manis, R. Z., (2009). Philosophy of Religion.
McCloskey, H. J. (1968). On Being An Atheist
Craig, W. L. (2008). The Absurdity of Life without God.
