RESPONSE ESSAY
1
RESPONSE ESSAY
Marisol Wilke
Liberty University Online
August 15, 2016
RESPONSE ESSAY
2
RESPONSE ESSAY
In the article written by McCloskey, he refers to his arguments as “proofs” and suggests
that they are unable to build the case for God, and because of that, these arguments should cease
to exist. In his “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence” presentation, Dr. Forman offers
that we should refrain from using the word “proof” because we cannot really prove that God
exist. He says that the word ‘proof’ “carries with it a connotation of certainty” [Fornd], yet we
can’t really prove the existence of God. However, we can offer our best explanation of why we
believe that God exist, but even with those explanations, we can’t offer proof that God exists.
In his article, On Being an Atheist, regarding the cosmological argument, McCloskey’s
objection asserts that just because the world exists, it doesn’t establish a reason in believing in a
necessary being. Evans and Manis’ (2009) discussion of the non-temporal form of the argument
explains why the cause of the universe must be necessary (and therefore uncaused). Evans &
Manis (2009) offers that contingency of the universe means that the things around us (the sun,
the moon, other galaxies - the universe - doesn’t need to exist, but it does. These things we see
are not necessary, but they do exist, this is contingency. So there is a human need to know why
these things exist. Something must have created the things we see, a being that does not have a
beginning; something that has always existed, and thus created the contingent things that did not
need to be created – a necessary being as the ultimate cause or uncaused created these contingent
things, therefore a necessary being is the ultimate cause for the creation of the contingent things.
God is not a contingent being, meaning, that God was not created. God has always
existed and in response to objections inquiring that if everything requires a cause for its
existence, then God also requires to cause for his existence. But if that were the case, then God
wouldn’t be God, but the creation of a more powerful, all knowing, all loving god.
RESPONSE ESSAY
3
In his claim, McCloskey stated that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to
postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” He implies that cause and effect of the
phenomena we are able to see, does not entitle us to call it God. He argues that just because the
world exists doesn’t mean that someone or something powerful, all knowing, created it. As
Evans and Manis’ concluded the cosmological argument (p. 77), the inference is that the
argument concurs with many of the different views of God. Even if the argument works, it only
scrapes the surface into the knowledge of God. If someone adopts that argument, her attitude
should be that of wanting to learn more about God and to stay sensitive to the calling of the Holy
Spirit.
Furthermore, McCloskey claims that there are no indisputable examples of design and
purpose. He argues that there is no evidence and one cannot logically argue the existence of an
intelligent being just because, for example, the human body is engineered to do what it needs to
do to maintain a status of hemostasis, that the reason that is the case, that an intelligent being
created it. And if that were the case, then this intelligent being was evil and imperfect. In defense
of the argument, Aquinas suggested things in nature that imply design are both order and value.
When something is in order, valuable results are brought forth. So, if something is working in an
orderly fashion, then that is the result of intelligent design. Now, defenders of this argument
claim that it is not impossible, logically for these things to just happen by chance. But if there is
a possibility that they do happen by chance, the argument fails deductively, the defenders
contend that it is improbable, which in turn opens doors to the plausibility of theism. Theism
provides the best explanation possible to the evidence of the things we see.
An example of design that, while not necessarily “indisputable,” provides strong
evidence of a designer of the universe is the genetic code, DNA. Without a doubt, variations
RESPONSE ESSAY
4
occur in nature randomly and how organisms pass down the favorable changes in genes to their
off spring.
In his article, McCloskey suggests that evolution has replaced the need for a designer. For
the sake of the argument, let us assume that the theory of evolution is true. As the defenders, we
can relate the need to focus on the idea that this kind of creation, with its complexity and
balance, created from scratch, stipulates an exceptional scientific explanation, creation science.
Let’s concede that the big ban theory is true and the process of evolution has occurred,
however, this process of evolution cannot explain the order in which things have evolved; it fails
to do so mechanically. What (or who) made these changes occur? It seems reasonable to perceive
this process as led by intelligent design.
Also, let’s accept the strength of Darwin’s theories as scientific explanations regarding
the order of the universe. The mechanical cause to make the world go round - but let’s not forget
that there’s an ultimate explanation. It is possible that explanations of mechanical and design or
teleological nature may agree in some areas. For something to move, there must be a mechanic
force behind it to set it in motion. For example, a car does what it was designed to do, but the car
does need a designer. We can defend that God uses this mechanical forces to accomplish his will.
The evolutionary process, if it does happen then it is because the laws of nature allows it to
happen, something set these laws of nature in order. Evolution increases our understanding of the
beauty and the complexity of God.
McCloskey raises his objection to theism regarding the evil we see in the world. He
discusses that if God is such a perfect and intelligent being, then he wouldn’t allow the pain and
suffering we see. That if God is all-powerful, he would not let these things take place, but
because he allows pain and suffering, then he must be an evil and perverse God.
RESPONSE ESSAY
5
McCloskey attempts to invalidate the teleological argument by raising the presence of
evil, pain and suffering in the world. He contends that divine design and imperfection’s existence
contradict each other. If there is an intelligent and perfect being, then the world should be
perfect, but it is not. Therefore, an intelligent being that is evil created the imperfect world we
live in. Neither the cosmological or teleological arguments can offer all there is to know about
God and are not meat to offer proof of God’s existence, but rather it offers the best explanation
that should be studied and supported.
Many people question the goodness of God. God can wipe out evil if He wanted
to, but because evil exist, doesn’t mean that God doesn’t. God allows evil to happen to perhaps
bring about a good or prevent a greater evil from happening. Omnipotence means “all-powerful”;
God has the ability to do anything, but yet there are limits to God’s omnipotence. He cannot lie;
and He cannot sin. God cannot do what is logically impossible. God cannot make a circle square
or a square triangle. Second-order goods logically require the possibility of evil for those goods
to be realized. Moral virtues require a certain evil to be recognized. Sympathy is not possible
without suffering. Courage is not possible without the possibility of fear.
Another argument to regarding the presence of evil is the argument of free will. God have
has given men free will, but many times men misuse the ability to free will by the choices they
make. God is capable of guiding man’s free will, but that would not give men the chance to make
good choices based on their moral virtues. When man misuses his free will, the consequence is
result of man wickedness, not God. If God created this world where His creation would never do
anything wrong, then that freedom would not be real. God created mankind to have a genuine
love for Him; free will to chose God or not.
RESPONSE ESSAY
6
The free will argument contends that it is not necessary true that a good being will always
eradicate all form of evil, or that an all-powerful being will eradicate evil without the loss of any
greater good. Atheists look for the weakness in the argument by reasoning that God and evil are
logically contrary to one another, and thus because evil exist, then God must not. God’s mind is
limitless, the reasons for why God allows maybe the ones we are not equipped to know, because
our minds do have limits and there are things that we cannot comprehend, and perhaps God does
not have to show it to us.
J.L Mackie and McCloskey formulate an objection to the free will argument offering that
because the existence of evil, God cannot exist, because both the existence of evil and the
existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect being would not allow evil to exist, thus both
existence are contradictory to one another. Mackie argues that if God created men, then why
didn’t He made possible that His creation would always chose to do the right thing, and because
men chose to do wrong, God’s character is inconsistent with being both omnipotent and wholly
good. Alvin Plantinga’s argument places emphasis on the “libertarian view of freedom”[Eva09].
The argument infers that if a person has a genuine freedom of choice, what she will do, will be
completely up to her, and not to God.
The evidential form of the problem constitutes that because of the evil that exists in the
world, it is evidence against the existence of God. Atheists admit the possibility of a perfect, all
good, all knowing, all-powerful and superior being to allow evil to take place in order for a
greater good to be the result, nevertheless, atheist contend that much of the evil we see today is
“pointless”, meaning that it yields no greater good or is not logically necessary to attain a greater
good for that matter. A good God would not allow an unnecessary evil. In response to this
argument, once we admit that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and a transcendent being, it is
RESPONSE ESSAY
7
reasonable to declare that God has knowledge that we know nothing about and He is in no
obligation to reveal His reasons to us, “If God exists, it is virtually certain that many of his
reasons are inscrutable to us”[Eva09].
Atheists cannot find real comfort because they do not have hope. If God does not exist,
then there is no meaning to life. Everyone should only look out for them selves and strive to get
ahead with disregard to their fellow men. Atheists also believe that it is absurd and irrational to
put others before our selves.
For argument’s sake, Craig (2008) offers the following: it is difficult to experience and
witness evil and to know that God could stop it, but won’t, can be a heavy burden, but to know
that God, in His unlimited knowledge has a reason for the burden, we can then hold on to hope
as we carry the load. To know that all the pain and suffering we see around will one day be made
right and the promise of heaven is more comforting than to live a life of suffering and know that
at the end of life, that is all one will have. No hope of heaven
References
Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books.
RESPONSE ESSAY
8
Evans, S. C., & Manis, Z. R. (2009). Phyilosophy of Religion: Thinking about faith. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Approaching the Question of God's Exsistence (n.d.). [Motion Picture].
