Is believing in God reasonable or is he even real for that matter? Why do people choose to believe or not to believe in him? If you do believe is there any true value in doing so? The question of God’s very existence has been discussed throughout time. H.J. McCloskey, an atheist, expounds on this matter in his article “On Being an Atheist.” Of course this article is from the atheist point of view. McCloskey alleges that atheism is a more agreeable explanation of the world than theism, and the very existence of God must be dismissed. He believes this because of the presence of evil in the world and states that without definitive “proofs” God therefore cannot exist.
McCloskey refers to arguments for God’s existence as “proofs.” I believe that McCloskey stresses this word to much. The term “proof” comes from the field of mathematics and it implicates certainty. For example 5 + 2 = 7 and 2 + 5 = 7 is a math formula that can be proved. It is a formula that can be proven according to the addition property of mathematics. The reality of God is not that simple. One should not look to prove his existence, but one should look to present the ideal that God is the best explanation for the world and life itself. A theist could do this by overlapping multiple ideas and together there is enough strength to present an argument for God being the best explanation for the world.
McCloskey presents the following on the cosmological argument: He claims that “the mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being” (McCloskey, H.J., 1968, pg. 51). C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis present a non-temporal form of the cosmological argument. Their argument can be broken down into three key elements: “(1) Some contingent beings exist. (2) If any contingent beings exist, then a necessary being must exist (because contingent beings require a necessary being as their ultimate cause). (3) Therefore, there exists a necessary being (which is the ultimate cause of the existence of contingent beings)” (Evans and Manis, 2009, pg. 70). Evans and Manis are aware of the objections to their argument, but they are able to give a response to every objection presented. The first objection is the universe always existed. The response to this is there is a possibility that the universe always existed. Evans and Manis make no reference to the age of the universe, they just simply state that the “present existence of contingent objects requires that there be a necessary being” (Evans & Manis, 2009, pg. 70). The second objection deals with the cause of everything. If everything that exists requires there be a cause, then God must also have a cause for his existence. Again Evans and Manis respond to this objection and simply state that God is not a contingent being. If God was a contingent being he would have a cause and therefore not be God and thus rendering no dispute about his existence. In conclusion, God is self-existence or necessary being thus qualifying him to be called “God” therefore making his existence is infinite and uncaused.
McCloskey further claims that the cosmological argument does not allow “us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause” (pg. 64). He further explains that it only entitles one to believe that a cause that was powerful and imperfect enough created the world. McCloskey assumes that because evil is present in the world, then the cause of the world is in some way flawed. Evans and Manis conclude that a cosmological argument is limited in itself because it only shows that a necessary being caused the universe. This argument only creates an introduction to the knowledge of God. It allows for one to look deeper for a better understanding of God. Again, the theist does not have to “prove” God’s existence, but mere present God as the best explanation for the universe.
McCloskey also addresses the teleological argument in his article. He claims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 1968, pg. 64). In stating this, McCloskey wants evidence that cannot be disproved. Again, McCloskey uses the word “proof” and overemphasizes its meaning. What McCloskey is asking for is in itself unreasonable. Can he present undisputable examples of atheism having true value? I would think not. For that reason alone his request for “indisputable examples” are unreasonable. Another reason McCloskey’s request is irrational is because God cannot be defined.
Evidence is presented by Evans and Manis that suggests that the universe has a designer. Although this evidence is not completely indisputable, it is strong none the less. To put it very simply: Natures has many examples of designs. Designs are the result of a designer. Therefore nature is probably the result of a designer. Man himself has made a point to observe and record such observation of nature (Evans & Manis, 2009, pg. 80).
As one continues to read McCloskey’s article he implies that a need for a designer be replaced by evolution. According to Evans and Manis, the theory of evolution may be true and valid, but it does not dismiss the ideal for God to direct it. They further state that this evolution may be the process by which God, “the intelligent designer,” realizes his purpose (Evans & Manis, 2009, pg. 83). Evolution itself still needs a guide of some sort. This therefore leads one to ask, “Who or what guides evolution?” God existence here is not proven, but it is not disproven either. Again He, God, is presented as the best explanation of creation.
McCloskey then discusses the problem of evil in the world. He 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” (McCloskey, pg. 64). One must keep in mind that the teleological argument by itself is limited just as the cosmological argument. The teleological argument alones suggests that the cause of the universe is or must be intelligent therefore making it personal, but it does not make such being necessary. The cosmological argument suggests that a necessary being must exist, but that said being is not personal. Alone these two arguments can cause doubt, but together they complement each other. They are very compatible making God’s existence the best argument (Evans & Manis, 2009, pg. 86).
McCloskey’s main problem or objection with theism is the very presence of evil in the world. He states “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” (McCloskey, 1968, pg. 65). The logical form of the problem of evil suggests that the existence of evil and the existence of God are incompatible, logically speaking (Evans & Manis, 2009, pg. 158). God may very well have a purpose for evil, but we will never know. Who is to say that the presence of some evil leads to a greater good? Also if there was no evil then how would we know what is therefore good or a greater good? Maybe God permits evil in the face of good so a greater good can prevail (Evans & Manis, 2009, pg. 160). All McCloskey has done is raise the opportunity to asks more questions in which we may never know the answers. The burden of proof fall to him to show that God could not have created or allowed evil. Atheist cannot prove that God and evil are incompatible.
McCloskey then presents the argument of free will. He states “might not God have very easily so have arranged the world and biased man to virtue that men always freely chose what is right” (McCloskey, 1968, pg. 66)? A theist could respond to this by stating that God has allowed free will allowing humans to be morally responsible agents. This allows all people a choice to choose good or evil. In creating humans, God wanted us to “freely loved and serve him” (Evans & Manis, 2009, pg. 163). He allows us the ability to choose and with that there is the possibility that we will choose evil. True freedom involves risks and therefore evil is not God’s doing but that of the person who chooses to do such evil. Alvin Plantinga offers a modern take on the free will defense. He suggests that if God created humans with free will and He wants a world in which there is moral goodness, then it is possible that God cannot get the world he wants without a significant amount of moral badness as well (Martin, 2008, pg 212).
In the final pages of his article, McCloskey claims that atheism is more comfortable than theism. In response to that , one can consider what William Lane Craig states in Reasonable Faith, “Since one’s destiny is ultimately unrelated to one’s behavior, you may as well live as you please” (pg.74 ). Craig’s position here is that morality exists because of God. If life ended at the grave then life has no purpose. Without God there is no good and evil. Brotherhood, equality, and love are just mere words. They have no meaning. (Craig, 2008, pg 75). Therefore life without God has no purpose. God created man to glorify Him and commune with Him. Life without God is unrealistic and insignificant. Man would then have a life without meaning, value or purpose. Everything we as humans do and will do will have no purpose. Everything in life will be null and void.
In conclusion, H.J. McCloskey presents his arguments for atheism and how it is more comfortable than any theistic lifestyle. That is a matter of opinion. He has raised many concerns and questions that most people struggle with, even the theist for that matter. Based on the arguments I have presented, I believe God cannot be proven or disproven, but He is the best explanation for the universe and all creatures that exist in the universe. God has allowed us the choice of free will and because of that we have a right to choose whether we believe in his existence or if we choose not to. That alone for me is an argument that shows that even an atheist has a right to choose and God has allowed them that privilege.
References
Craig, W. L. (1994). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books.

Evans, C. S., & Manis, R. Z. (2009). Philosophy of religion: Thinking About Faith (2nd ed.). Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.

Martin, Edward N. . (2008). Problem of Evil. In Ed Hindson & Ergun Caner (Eds.), The popular encyclopedia of apologetics: Surveying the evidence for the truth of Christianity (pp. 211-214 ). Eugene, OR: Harvest House.
McCloskey, H. J. (1968). On Being An Atheist. Question, vol. 1. pg. 62-69