In February of 1968, H.J. McCloskey published an article called “On Being an Atheist,” in the journal Question One. In his article, McCloskey makes a very entertaining explanation in why the argument of God’s existences fails. This paper responds to McCloskey’s arguments via a theistic worldview.
McCloskey attempted to show that atheism is quite a bit more reasonable, as well as comfortable than theism. McCloskey uses the word “proof” instead of “theory” to add fallacious power to his argument. There are many of his concepts that are accepted as a truth, but cannot be absolutely proven. Nothing can be proven one hundred percent. They are simply based on a whole bunch of concepts that we know to be true. This could be said in regards to God’s existence, as well. After all, McCloskey does state that, “most theists do not come to believe in God as a basis for religious believe, but come to religion as a result of other reasons and factors,” (McCloskey, 62). McCloskey believes that the arguments he makes individually cannot make a case for the existence of God.
McCloskey argued against the three theistic proofs, cosmological argument, theological argument, and the argument from design. The Cumulative case that he presents takes the Cosmological, Theological, and Moral Arguments and puts them together. The Cosmological case makes a claim for the existence for God, the Theological case is the intelligent case, and the Moral case is morally perfect. All together,