The existence of God against McCloskeys writing

The existence of God against McCloskeys writing

Proofs

In 1968, HJ McCloskey wrote an article titled his fellow atheists "Being an atheist." His purpose for writing this article was to inform other atheist's deficiencies is theistic God, and to respond to accusations that atheism is the position of "cold" and "comfort." The author tries to show that in fact, is that theism is the position of cold and comfortless to celebrate.

Mr. McCloskey is certainly an intelligent and thoughtful man. His article was written in an easy to understand syntax, and was adopted without question by many who held a similar position. In fact, I think any Christian who fined it easy to agree fully with Mr. McCloskey. Atheism is a much better alternative to serve the kind of God that he describes in his work! While McCloskey's arguments sound good, his portrayal of a vengeful god, vindictive and manipulating seem alien to a discerning Christian. In reading your article, questioned the depth of the author's research on the God of the Bible at all. It almost seems as if your understanding only comes from theists He obviously uninformed he cites in his article. One has the impression that all theists are either dim-witted or gluttons for punishment, perhaps even a bit of both.

McCloskey attempts to refute three arguments well known for the existence of God. McCloskey arguments in most cases focus on the problem of evil. In his attempt to disprove the cosmological argument, McCloskey makes the statement that when a theist use this argument, that "not enough or thought enough about the problem of a causeless cause. " is about making this statement that bias McCloskey takes center stage. The author hopes that the theist to explain what he cannot explain about his own position. McCloskey initial problem with the cosmological argument is that the existence of the universe in its current state is not suitable for extrapolating the existence of an omnipotent God who created perfect. I agree with that statement, however, this argument is the sole purpose of showing the necessity of a First Cause. McCloskey is never quite clear on whether he believes in a first cause, but as an evolutionist, I guess you do, just as long as the first cause is God.

Cosmological Argument

When the cosmological argument does reveal the need for a First Cause, the teleological argument intended to show that this first cause is a personal intelligence. The teleological argument focuses on the design order and show that we are witnessing in the universe as evidence of an intelligent Creator. McCloskey accuses those who hold this view as people who "know nothing about evolution." It seems as if the author has not bothered to ask any number of Christian scientists and molecular biologists to explain why I can still believe in one God, even in light of all they have undoubtedly had to learn in college. Further states that, "To get the test running, genuine examples, and ...