Best Arguement for God's Existence

The article entitled "On Being an Atheist" written by H.J. McCloskey was a reply to the "proofs" or arguments to which theists base their belief in God (McCloskey, 1968, p. 62). McCloskey believes that the cosmological proof, teleological proof and argument from design all motivate theists to believe in God, however, there are serious flaws in these proofs that would constitute our beliefs to be ones based upon false presumptions.

McCloskey refers to the arguments Christians use in regard to approaching the question of God's existence as "proofs" (McCloskey, 1968, p. 62). He goes on to imply that because we cannot definitively prove the existence of God, then our arguments should be abandoned. I would have to disagree with him based upon the fact that it is extremely difficult to prove something to such validity that it is 100% definitive. And we are not saying that we can prove that God exists, but that it is merely the best explanation based upon the effects that we see around us.

Scientists utilize this method, also known as the scientific method, during their research. When something cannot be proved, they simply rely on the best explanation for guidance as to why something happened. An example is one that was discussed during our Lesson 18 PointeCast; "the fact that scientists believe that there is a magnetic field that surrounds Earth and this magnetic field is what causes magnets to work the way they do. We have not had any empirical experiences with the so called magnetic field, but it is the best explanation of the effect we see when we evaluate magnets."

However, while relying on the best explanation to the effects we see transpiring around us, we also utilize the cosmological, teleological and moral arguments cumulatively in order to defend our beliefs. It is the combination of these arguments that leads us to the conclusion that there is a personal, moral, intelligent creator of the universe as this is the best explanation for universe that we experience. I am not saying that this is the only explanation we can arrive at, but it is the best explanation when you cumulatively evaluate all aspects of the world around us.

The Cosmological Argument

The temporal version of the cosmological argument argues that there must be a first cause of the universe; something that got everything going. The first cause means that there must have been a creator. McCloskey claims that the "mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being (McCloskey, 1968, p. 63). However, I have to respectively disagree based upon the fact that there are contingent beings present within the universe, such as humans, and these contingent beings would have to have been created by a necessary being.

"Contingent beings are ones that do exist but may not have, and a necessary being is one that cannot fail to exist as it is the cause of the existence of all contingent beings" (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 69). In order for contingent beings to exist, such as ourselves, there has to be a necessary being and the necessary being is the ultimate cause of the existence of all contingent beings. Based upon this evaluation, how can we claim that a creator of the universe is non-existent? If there is not a creator, then how did we get here?

McCloskey also claims that the cosmological argument "does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause" (McCloskey, 1968, p. 63). My response to this would take us back to the beginning when I stated that the cosmological argument has to be paired with the teleological and moral arguments in order to present the best explanation for the existence of God. On its own, "the cosmological argument merely shows the existence of a necessary being that is the cause of the universe, but leaves out other very important elements" (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 77).

Therefore, we cannot assume that because the cosmological argument presents the idea that there must be a necessary being and the necessary being is the ultimate cause of the existence of all contingent beings, that this necessary being is all-powerful or all-perfect. We are simply stating that because these contingent beings are present, there has to be a necessary being that first caused all of these things to occur, a cause that presented us with what we see today.

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument argues that the universe exhibits design and that design must mean that there is some sort of intelligent designer. McCloskey states that "to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed" (McCloskey, 1968, p. 64). He goes on to say that because there is not an indisputable example of design present, the argument is not valid. I would have to say that while I agree that there are no indisputable examples of design present, I can propose a strong argument that provides evidence of a designer.

Upon evaluation of the universe we can clearly see that there are two items present that would imply design, order and value. We know that "things in nature act always or nearly

...