Premium Essay

Mr Mccloskey Argumentative Essay

Submitted By
Words 1604
Pages 7
Many people argue about the existence of God. McCloskey is one of those people. The following paper will discuss some of the arguments Mr. McCloskey has against God, as well as, a proper rebuttal for them.
Mr. McCloskey would argue that the different arguments, or “proofs” as he calls it, do not provide an accurate case for the existence of God, therefore they should be ignored (McCloskey 51). The problem is, that the arguments were never meant to be used as definitive proof, but rather as a “best explanation” as explained by Dr. Foreman (Foreman Presentation: God’s Existence). The arguments for God’s existence are just that, arguments. Those who use these arguments would understand that the arguments are not perfect and theoretically they …show more content…
Indeed, it does not supply a complete argument for the existence of God as defined by Christian; however, it does still point to a God. Something had to create or set into motion, the existence of the universe. Evans and Manis would argue that everything we see that there is no specific explanation as to why the universe even exists (Evans 69). These two authors would argue that there must be something that has always existed in order to explain why everything else exists (Evans 69). Mr. McCloskey would be somewhat correct in saying that the cosmological argument does not provide complete concrete evidence about God (Evans 77) (McCloskey 52). The issue that Mr. McCloskey does not see, is that the cosmological argument is not designed to provide 100% proof of God. It is designed to cause its reader to question the existence of God, and in doing so, seek to find more answers about this God. It is true that trying to understand an “uncaused caused” is difficult; however, it more likely that the “uncaused caused” is God instead of a big bang (McCloskey 51). Yes, the cosmological argument calls for the existence; however, it does not satisfy every question that comes from that call. Instead, this argument provokes those involved to look deeper into the claim of God (Evans