On Being An Atheist Argumentative Essay

Throughout history, many questions are brought up on, the fact is there really a God? This question has been heavily debated by theists and atheists. Many atheists are firm on the fact if there is a God on what proofs do you have on affirming your beliefs? One well known atheists, by the name of H. J. McCloskey published an article entitled, “On Being an Atheist,” on February of 1968, in the journal Question One. In the article that McCloskey authored, he tries to validate his points that it is more logical to be an atheist instead of believing that there is a God. McCloskey debate this topic from an atheistic perspective, and argued against the major arguments known as the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the argument …show more content…
The cosmological argument states, “It’s the attempts to infer the existence of God from the existence of the cosmos or universe” (Evans & Manis, 67). The cosmological argument many times is known as the first-cause argument; God is the creator of all existence. McCloskey attacks the first-cause argument. He says, “That the first cause must be explained as being a necessarily existing being, one who cannot not exists” (McCloskey, 63). Although, this argument can’t stand alone, when looking around at the things of this world, it has to be noted the existence of many things. When looking, collectively things that are in existence don’t have to necessarily exist according to the law of nature. The question is why do these things exist? These types of things are under the non-temporal contingency, which is another version of the cosmological argument. This argument claims that, “The explanation of a contingent being’s existence will be incomplete unless it culminates in the causal activity of a necessary being, a being that cannot fail to exist, and a being that is the cause of the existence of all contingent beings” (Evans & Manis, 69). There is no explanation needed for a necessary being. On the contrary, McCloskey don’t believe that this is enough to say the God exist. He states, “The mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in the existence …show more content…
McCloskey boldly states that this argument is not satisfactory just like the cosmological argument. This argument is similar to cosmological, however, it looks more closely at the character of the universe, and the design must have an intelligent designer. McCloskey believes, “that to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design or purpose are needed” (McCloskey, 64). McCloskey don’t think that these indisputable examples of design or purpose doesn’t exist, so this argument will never get going. However, McCloskey not looking at this argument for what it is. Although, this argument is not the means to all the questions of a God. On the contrary, it answer quite a few questions. Many late great philosophers supports this argument. For example, Thomas Aquinas is one of them. Aquinas believes that many things in nature act for a means of end. There are animals that were intelligent design to basically exist on their own. In addition, the human bodies has the ability to put of carbon dioxide, and need oxygen to survive. “Aquinas makes mention there are two features present in nature that together imply intelligent design” (Evans & Manis, 78). There are order, and beneficial order. In addition, it is amazing that a seed and eggs can reproduce and create a living organisms. It takes an intelligent designer to create this process. Things in