Mccloskey Argumentative Analysis

1715 Words7 Pages
One of McCloskey’s first arguments against God’s existence is to discredit proofs. He believes that because that one can not use proofs as a secure basis for their religious beliefs, and as a result of this, they cannot be used to prove God’s existence. In his presentation, Foreman states that he does not want to use the word proof, since he believes that it implicates certainty, and that these arguments do not give hundred percent certainty that God exists. Although these arguments do not completely prove that God exists, they are still extremely valuable for theists’ arguments. Unfortunately, due to their inability to provide evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, Atheists are able to present a defeater that would…show more content…
If this idea is used and accepted in many other fields, then why, according to atheists, is it unacceptable to be used in theism? The main reason as to why McCloskey is denying these proofs is because he is interpreting them in a way that they were never met to be seen. He makes sure that his view of the proofs only supports his atheistic argument. Another important fact mentioned by Foreman is that one of these arguments is not enough to justify the existence of God. In the cumulative case approach, one must combine all of the arguments to make a strong case which explains that the effects of the universe are caused by the existence of a God. McCloskey does examine three different arguments to prove his point, but it is essential that he analyzes other the arguments…show more content…
Evans and Manis argue that the creation of contingent beings is dependent on a necessary being, and as a result, there must be an existent necessary being to create them. Yes, a necessary being may be uncaused since its existence does not require an explanation, but that does not mean that the cosmological argument does not entitle it. Despite this argument’s importance, Evans and Manis do mention that the cosmological argument is only a small piece of the puzzle when establishing the existence of God. The authors contend that the cosmological argument “hardly constitutes more than entering a wedge into the knowledge of God” (Evans and Manis 77). If someone accepts the conclusion of this argument, then they should search for more ways to learn about God and obtain further knowledge of
Open Document