1. McCloskey refers to the arguments as “proofs” and often implies that they can't definitively establish the case for God, so therefore they should be abandoned. What would you say about this in light of my comments on the approaches to the arguments in the PointeCast presentation (Lesson 18)?
To start with proving his existence, one does not need a proof. It is not emotional, but rather rational to believe and understand that God is a separate entity of existence and that no form of evidentiary support is required to claim that God exists.
2. On the Cosmological Argument:
McCloskey claims that the “mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being [i.e. a necessarily existing being].” Using Evans' discussion of the non-temporal form of the argument (pp. 69-77) explains why the cause of the universe must be necessary (and therefore uncaused).
In the light of modern science and technology, the development of such masterpiece of this magnitude and precision cannot be developed by man alone. The concept of gravity although was discovered by a human being, but what about all those planets that orbit the Sun, the tectonic planets that are designed and formed inside of the earth and all the geographic plains that have been made and yet to be discovered do not consider or portray the work of a man and his otherwise limited intelligence.
McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause. “ In light of Evans's final paragraph on the cosmological argument (p. 77), how might you respond to McCloskey?
To come to terms with McCloskey, I can clearly see and observe that he has personally seen a lot of bad luck and times of adversity in his life, which has changed his perception of his reason of existence and his entire belief of presence in this world. So to put my statement of defense, I would suggest to him that humans or any other mortals sources do not have the credibility or the standing to be bowed in front of or to submit. Every single good deed done in this world is also an act of God; when there was nothing, He was there and when there will be nothing, He will be there. He is the All-Knowing; just like he mentions in the article about that child that I would rather work to give my child the best treatment, why? Because it is God who asked him to, otherwise the most dangerous on the planet can be summed in word - human.
3. On the Teleological Argument:
McCloskey claims that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed.” Discuss this standard of “indisputability” which he calls a “very conclusive objection.” Is it reasonable?
Indisputability implies that nothing that cannot be questioned neither is questionable or argumentative. If McCloskey could see and understand, even modern science till date has not been able to trace the whereabouts of ...