Mccloskey Asserts That the Initial

McCloskey asserts that the initial belief of the Christians does not always come because of the belief they have in the existence of God They always have other reasons for which they go for the belief in God. In the cosmological proof, the theist believes that there the world could not just have existed without the influence of some powers. Therefore, they associate the existence of the world to the existence of God.

They argue that the existence of the Supreme Being contributed to the existence of something rather than nothing. The teleological proof also provides that there everything in the world is a product of an intelligence design, thereby contributing this to God whom they view as a powerful designer of all the existence in the universe. These theists, however, do not provide the cause of the existence of the Supreme Being. They believe that God is the unmoved mover and a necessary being.

They just reach at the level of God causing the existence of the world without looking into the fact that According to me, I agree with the opinion given by McCloskey that the arguments provided by the theist are just proofs, which cannot be relied on in establishing the existence of God. However, the proofs should not be totally done away with, because they help the human beings in discerning the meaning of their existence.

Because of the lack of the knowledge of their existence, human beings can rely on theism to help them in providing the solution to their question. There must be an intelligent designer, who is God, even though there is no proof to show what could have led to his existence. Question 2a Even though McCloskey believes that the proofs do not provide the adequate proof for the existence of God, there is a need to provide the cause of the existence of all the things in the world.

This is because of the design that the object in the world takes. The contingency of the universe brings the unique design, which obviously could not exist without the influence of an external factor. The continent world comes as the result of the situation where the objects we see have unique order or disorder, which the law of nature can easily explain. For this reason of contingency, it is, therefore, true that there must be an existence of a contingence being who contributed to the continence existence in the universe.

The existent of the intelligent design of the universe also brings the high possibility that the contingent being still exists and he controls the world. For instance, the body of the organisms has an anatomy viable and compatible to their environment and their neighbors. The reason being given by the atheist that there must be cause for the existent of the contingent being cannot apply because of the explanation that there is an infinite number of the contingent beings or there is simply no cause of the being.

While the former applies that each continent being had its causer hence forming a series of the causers, the former asserts that there is just no cause of the contingent being. Question 2b Through Evans postulation on the cosmological argument, McCloskey opinion cannot help in solving the problem about the existence of God. From the contingency nature of the universe, it is unmanageable to contend that a global cause could have been weak or imperfect.

This is because of the unique order in which the universe and its constituents take, that is, there is the existence of a life form, which may not have existed. These actions can only occur through the existence of the all knowing and powerful being. The uncaused cause also contribute less in the explanation of the universe because a person may argue that there are infinite causes and, therefore, difficult to explain. A person can also argue that there is just no cause of the cause.

Question 3a McCloskey argues his indisputable example from the view given by the cosmological proof, which talks about God being perfect and all-powerful. He uses this to discuss the example of the design and purpose for which there is the existence of the universe. Therefore, He argues that because the theist also believes on the existence of evil in the world, then the cause of the universe was not perfect.

Nobody can accept being associated with the evil and, therefore, the Supreme Being was not purposeful in the cause of designing the world. The existence of evil is a threat to every being hence this contradicts the belief that there is an explanation for the divine purpose the designing of the universe. Therefore, according to McCloskey, the thesis of design and purpose does not provide proof to the existence of God. Question 3b The cosmological design provides the strong evidence about the existence of the universe designer.

This is as the result of the explanation of the contingency nature of the world, which could not just come out of nothing. The contingent beings in the universe, which could have been the other way than they are, contribute to the presence of an omniscient and an all-knowing designer. Question 3c If evolution were to be true, Evans asserts that it could have still reinforced the fact that the universe is a creation of a designer.

Evans state that evolution process being a mechanical process could simply be used by God to achieve his purpose of creation. The teleological design applies that the evolutionary process could have just been a way of projecting the complexity of the work done by the designer. Question 3d Evans asserts that the cosmological argument only provides the explanation of the cause of the universe, and not the other components of the universe.

The charge by McCloskey can be applied on the case of limitation of cosmological design because it does not provide for the explanation of evil in the universe. The use of cosmological design ignores the presence of evil thereby making it inappropriate in explaining the perfection in the design purposes of God. Question 4a In his writing, Evans uses the note made by Mackie that the presence of God plus the additional premises is a logical indicator that there is no evil in the world.

At this point, this would disapprove the assertion made by McCloskey that the presence of evil disqualifies the presence of God. The additional premises in the case of Evans, talks of the fact the presence of evil was to be an opposition in the existence of God. The evil provides for the strong opposition against the belief that God exists. Therefore, the mere presence of the evil does not necessarily contradicts the presence of God but just helps in projecting the presence of God.

This is because where there is evil there must be good whereby God associates with good. Question 4b According to Mackie, it was within God's power to create a world with creatures and without evil. It involves the giving man the freedom but manipulating the freedom such that men can only do things, which are good. Mackie, therefore, provides that man could have not been associated with evils, which always contradict the presence of God.

However, Evans says that Plantiga provides the more plausible definition of the free will of man. Plantiga asserts that the true meaning of free will only comes when there are no restrictions in such type of freedom. Therefore, man could choose on whether to do good or evil. Evans also uses the evidential problem to determine the extent to which.