Thesis on "Existence of God on Using Arguments"

Thesis 5 pages (1540 words) Sources: 3 Style: Turabian

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Existence of God

On Using Arguments to Establish the Case for God

McCloskey states in his article that the problem with most theists is that they come to believe in God based on other factors and reasons other than proofs alone.1 He may be referring to subjective factors like faith and personal evidence, which he possibly might abandon as true proofs and for good reason. However, he does acknowledge that there are three "proofs" that motivate the theist to believe in God -- the cosmological proof, teleological proof, and the argument from design -- all of which he describes as defective.1.

It's probably worthwhile to consider these "proofs" in light of the Cumulative Case approach in the PointeCast presentation. The Cumulative Case is noteworthy because it accepts that there is not one argument that can prove the existence of God but only "a series of arguments that when cumulatively put together offer a very strong case for God."2 Hence, instead of claiming only one argument or "proof" as the most plausible explanation, the cumulative approach builds the case carefully by putting together three arguments in a coherent manner.

These three arguments, or their premises and supporting statements thereof, are in fact the three "proofs" that McCloskey says lead theists to their theism. These are the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments.2 Each has its own set of premises that support reasons for thinking that (1) the Universe is created by a self-existent being; (2) that it is perfectly designed; and (3) that its designer is morally perfect, respectively2. Put together, the cumulative case can be summarized as: "A personal, m

Continue scrolling to

download full paper ⤓

oral, intelligent creator of the Universe is the best explanation for the universe we experience." 2

2. On the Cosmological Argument

At the core of Evans' discussion of the cosmological argument is the premise that some contingent beings exist.3 Contingent beings are things around us that exist but don't necessarily have to. For example, when we look around us, we see objects -- trees, animals, soil, clouds, etc. -- that exist but could easily not exist. If they exist, then there must be a reason for their existence or a necessary being. In other words, Evans' argument of the universe is this: Why should the universe exist at all if not for the purpose of something else that caused it? Hence, the cause of the universe -- inferred to as God -- is necessary. One objection to this argument is that "If everything needs a cause, then God must have a cause."2 (McCloskey is of this view, claiming that the cosmological argument is defective because it's causal nature leads to an infinite regress of causes.) 1 Evans replies that this objection is misguided because it presupposes that everything needs a cause.3 His premise is that only some things are contingent. Thus, He implies that God is not a contingent being; God is self-existent and is uncaused.

If, as McCloskey claims, the cosmological argument "does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause,"1 then what is the alternative? If there is no Creator of the universe, what metaphysical view is the most plausible explanation for the universe's existence?3 As Evans explains, the question about God is not proving the existence of another being but rather attempting to explain the nature and character of the universe as a whole.3 While there are rival views to the cosmological argument like pantheism and naturalism, a theist may argue that the cosmological argument is a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe.3

3. On the Teleological Argument

McCloskey says that for a powerful, intelligent, perfect planner of the universe to exist, there must be "genuine indisputable examples of (His) design and purpose"1 He claims that in fact, as suggested by the Theory of Evolution, there is no evidence of such design or purpose.1 He doesn't elaborate, but he seems to imply that evolution is indisputable and hence a "very conclusive objection."1 First of all, the Theory of Evolution is just a theory or a tentative explanation of a phenomenon. As such, it is not infallible. Even the top evolutionary experts agree that evolution is by no means a complete theory, with gaps still waiting to be filled. Second, as someone writing from the late 60's, McCloskey would not have known about some future discoveries in modern science that continue to challenge the so-called "indisputability" of the theory of evolution.

Assuming that for argument's sake, evolution is true, it actually leads to the existence of a designer, rather than as McCloskey implies, "displaced the need"1 for one. Evolution cannot seem to proceed at random but rather through a series of events that follow a logical order. Evolution can be thought of as the mechanism by which the cosmos was created, guided by intelligent design and planning.4 Evans illustrates this using shoe production as a model. The machine is the mechanism that makes the shoe, but the machine itself is devised to do so by the shoe designer.4

If the conclusion of the matter were that there exists a perfect designer and planner of the universe, then the next step for the theist would be to know more about the Creator's purpose and character to make sense of the rampant evil in a world supposedly under His rule and order.4

4. On the Problem of Evil

To McCloskey, the presence of evil constitutes strong evidence against God.1 He stresses this claim repeatedly in his paper through the logical form of the problem: (a) God is perfect and benevolent; (b) Evil exists and is persistent; (c) Therefore God does not exist. According to Evans, a theist might respond to this claim using the soul-making and free will arguments.5

In the first instance, the occurrence of evil is sometimes necessary for the result of a greater good. Evans illustrates this using a heroic soldier who might sacrifice his life for the sake of his comrades.5 Similarly, natural evils (e.g. illnesses) are perhaps necessary in order for a person to cultivate certain virtues.5 From a theistic perspective, then, there is no utterly pointless evil. Experiencing evil can be viewed as a test of faith. This judgment is simply based on a believer's personal evidence of God's goodness (i.e., the evidential form of the problem of evil), which is as valid as the atheistic argument.5

In his free will argument, Evans states that "it is logically possible for God to create free beings who always choose to do right, but it is not logically possible for God to create beings who inevitably do right."5 In other words, it is entirely up to man whether to use his freedom for good or evil. If man deliberately chooses to engage in morally evil acts that result in injury to innocent persons, then the resulting evil is due to man and not God.5 If God easily arranges man to be biased to always choose to do what is right (as what McCloskey suggests what God might do) then that is not true free will at all. As Evans puts it, God does not intend to control men so they can be His robots; He wants men to love and serve Him freely.5

5. On Atheism as Comforting

In his paper, McCloskey concludes that atheism is more comforting than theism1. To someone who seems to be suffering pointlessly, McCloskey suggests it's better for him not to believe in God rather than wrack his brains trying to figure out why God allows the suffering. Atheism leads to self-reliance and self-respect, allowing man to give and seek comfort where it can be given and visibly found. 1

Craig, on the other hand, believes that life without God is absurd.6 If there is no God, then man and the Universe are doomed, because that means life has… READ MORE

Download Full Paper

Write a New Paper for Me

Quoted Instructions for "Existence of God on Using Arguments" Assignment:

“

Response Paper

McCloskey Article (278.205 Kb)

Having completed the unit of philosophy of religion, you are now ready to respond to an article written by an actual atheist. This article, titled *****On Being an Atheist,***** was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question. McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who wrote a number of atheistic works in the 1960s and 70s including the book God and Evil (Nijhoff, 1974). In this article, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments for God*****s existence and offers the problem of evil as a reason why one should not believe in God.

Your assignment is to read his short article, attached above, and respond to each of the questions below. The basis for your answers should primarily come from the resources provided in the lessons covering the philosophy of religion unit of the course (Evans, *****, and the PointeCast presentation). You are also encouraged to appeal to other outside sources, as long as you properly document them, using Turabian. This Response Paper is to be a minimum of 1500 words (equivalent to six pages). You may be critical of McCloskey, but should remain respectful. Your instructor is looking for a detailed response to each of the questions below.

Specifically, you should address the following:

1. McCloskey refers to the arguments as *****proofs***** and often implies that they can*****t definitively establish the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned. What would you say about this in light of my comments on the approaches to the arguments in the PointeCast presentation (Lesson 18)?

2. On the Cosmological Argument:

o McCloskey claims that the *****mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e. a necessarily existing being].***** Using Evans***** discussion of the non-temporal form of the argument (pp. 52-58) explain why the cause of the universe must be necessary (and therefore uncaused).

o McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument *****does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.***** In light of Evans*****s final paragraph on the cosmological argument (p. 59), how might you respond to McCloskey?

3. On the Teleological Argument:

o McCloskey claims that *****to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.***** Discuss this standard of *****indisputability***** which he calls a *****very conclusive objection.***** Is it reasonable?

o McCloskey implies that evolution has displaced the need for a designer. Assuming evolution is true, for argument*****s sake, how would you respond to McCloskey (see Evans pp. 65-66)?

o McCloskey claims that the presence of imperfection and evil in the world argues against *****the perfection of the divine design or divine purpose in the world.***** Remembering Evans***** comments about the limitations of the cosmological argument, how might you respond to this charge by McCloskey?

4. On the Problem of Evil:

o McCloskey*****s main objection to theism is the presence of evil in the world and he raises it several times: *****No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was unavoidable suffering or in which his creatures would (and in fact could have been created so as not to) engage in morally evil acts, acts which very often result in injury to innocent persons.***** The language of this claim seems to imply that it is an example of the logical form of the problem. Given this implication, using Evans*****s discussion of the logical problem (pp. 133-137, noting especially his concluding paragraphs to this section), how might you respond to McCloskey?

o McCloskey specifically discusses the free will argument, asking *****might not God have very easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always freely chose what is right?***** From what you have already learned about free will earlier in the course, and what Evans says about the free will theodicy (pp. 135-136) and what he says about the evidential problem (pp. 133-139), respond to McCloskey*****s question.

5. On Atheism as Comforting

o In the final pages of McCloskey*****s article he claims that atheism is more comforting than theism. Using the argument presented by William Lane ***** in the article *****The Absurdity of Life without God,***** respond to McCloskey*****s claim.

*****

How to Reference "Existence of God on Using Arguments" Thesis in a Bibliography

“Existence of God on Using Arguments.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2009, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/existence-god-using/570019. Accessed 27 Sep 2024.

Existence of God on Using Arguments (2009). Retrieved from https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/existence-god-using/570019

A1-TermPaper.com. (2009). Existence of God on Using Arguments. [online] Available at: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/existence-god-using/570019 [Accessed 27 Sep, 2024].

”Existence of God on Using Arguments” 2009. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/existence-god-using/570019.

”Existence of God on Using Arguments” A1-TermPaper.com, Last modified 2024. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/existence-god-using/570019.

[1] ”Existence of God on Using Arguments”, A1-TermPaper.com, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/existence-god-using/570019. [Accessed: 27-Sep-2024].

1. Existence of God on Using Arguments [Internet]. A1-TermPaper.com. 2009 [cited 27 September 2024]. Available from: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/existence-god-using/570019

1. Existence of God on Using Arguments. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/existence-god-using/570019. Published 2009. Accessed September 27, 2024.

Related Thesis Papers: