McCloskey in his article claims

Atheism is a judgement that has entered the mind of military personnel forward to the advent of scientific revolution. This ideology is non an original one and has its roots compensate during the time of the kings and prophets in the Old Testament. The record book records their cosmea in one of its verses The sprout hath said in his heart, there is no graven image1.They have been a minority in the past but as mans ability to mull over and create progressed so does his self egotism and pride expanded. More and more peck atomic number 18 now embracing the clause of faith that there is no God and the nonion in an any strong be is simply unreli satiscircumstanceory because there are no strong validations that can prove its validity.2Some of the countries which receive a high cast of atheism include origin earthly concern countries like Japan, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Germany and Sweden which topped the list.3 It has indeed original prominence in the ex istence and it is attracting more supporters through the series of counterarguments it throws to theism.McCloskey in his article claims that proofs or arguments which theists provide to support their printing have no weight.4 He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very(prenominal) theory of God implies his reality.5 McCloskey believes that there is no prefigure in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing but the ontological argument serves as the very asylum for other arguments which supports and defends Gods existence.If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is salvage necessary because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is uncloudedness and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should avoid discussing the ontological argument. Actu totallyy, McCloskeys failu re to analyze the ontological argument is one of the tenablenesss why he failed to understand the theists arguments.The diversity of religious beliefs bemused in the world is not aiding the theistical endeavor. It has further complicated the defenses used by theists all over the world. Fortunately, Evans clarified rough misconceptions about the characteristics of God in his article.For one, atheists confute the belief of an all powerful public because it pull up stakes result to absurdity. According to them such(prenominal) a being should be able to create an object that is both a circle and a box or if not create a bowlder so heavy that he himself cannot carry. solely such a rebuttal should not be considered as worthy to be filmed. It is completely a mockery.Atheists fail to entertain that the God who is being supported by the cosmological, teleological and moral argument is a God of reason. He is indeed all powerful but the language all powerful is not to be equated to tender vocabulary as being absolute. It is only used to elaborate on the fact that compared to man his power is unimaginable. He is not bound or limited by anything in this world.He is not governed by the systems of the world rather he governs it. Whatever we do will not diminish nor lessen his godliness. He is the only thing that is constant in this world and will not undergo any change. He is self-existent and will remain that way forever.Further clarification of the nature of God will lead us to the Cosmological Argument. The cosmological argument states that Gods existence is inferred through the existence of the cosmos or the universe.6 According to McCloskey, the stainless existence of the world constitutes no reason for believing in such a being (omnipotent).7He argues that the most we can accept is that the cause, which is the first cause or God, is powerful affluent to create the universe. But this attitude is in no way contradicting the belief that a being which is powerful enough did began the series of levelts which triggered the composition of the universe.It perfectly meets the penury of the temporal argument which only assumes that the universe had a first moment of existence. I have earlier stated that the phrase all powerful should not be misinterpreted because it is only used figuratively to answer for God. How can you further address person that is able to trigger the formation of galaxies? result the word powerful or very powerful be sufficient ?For the rice beer of emphasizing his greatness we use the precondition all powerful because no man can ever do the things that he have done. It is unimaginable for man to even produce a single abandon of hair from zero. Yes, scientists have managed to clone plants, animals and serviceman but he is only dependent of doing such if he has a specimen. He starts from something and makes it more complex but populace is not done in that process. It is from nothing to something.1 Psalm 14 1, The hallowed Bible.com, accessed on 13 May 2010. 2 Martin, Michel, identify Atheism on the Rise in U.S., 2009, NPR.org, accessed on 13 May 2010 from http//www.npr.org/templates/ recital/story.php?storyId=111885128 3 Zuckerman, Phil. Atheism Contemporary Rates and Patterns, chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK (2005). 4 McCloskey, H.J. On Being an Atheist, p. 50 5 Evans, Stephems Hellenic Arguments for Goss Existence, p. 63 6 ibid., p. 67 7 opcit, McCloskey, p. 51