“I will offer reasons why I believe atheism is a much more comfortable belief than theism, and why theists should be unhappy just because they are theists.” (McCloskey, 1968) In his article On Being an Atheist, H. J. McCloskey gives his reasons for being an atheist by examining the problem of evil and using the problem of evil as an attempt to refute various theistic theories on this topic. Within his article, McCloskey discusses a diverse number of topics regarding the problem of evil, including the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument, and design theory. This article will challenge the arguments for atheism put forward in McCloskey's article by arguing that the above arguments cannot be perceived as evidence, showing the flaws in McCloskey's view within each respective argument, and referring to the William Lane Craig's article The Absurdity of Life Without God to refute McCloskey's perception that atheism is more comfortable than theism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay McCloskey judges cosmological, ontological, teleological arguments, and design theory as evidence. For this reason, McCloskey can conclude that these arguments cannot be fundamental to the actual existence of a God. Nonetheless, the fact that he alludes to these arguments as evidence means that McCloskey is attributing to these arguments a degree of meticulous factuality with which arguments should not be perceived in the first place. A proof is an accurate and indubitable statement that reveals a final result. The arguments referenced in McCloskey's article alone cannot prove the truth of God's being, but these arguments provide factors regarding God's being. Cosmological, ontological, teleological arguments, and design theory present a viable explanation of how there can be a God despite the problem of evil. Just because these arguments do not provide a complete explanation of why or how God exists does not imply that they are arguments without well-founded points or arguments that should be completely rejected. It is necessary to consider the most reasonable and probable modus operandi and these arguments lead to this necessity. These arguments certainly do not provide irrefutable doubt regarding the existence of God, but it is more useful to consider the points raised by these arguments rather than dismiss them outright. Therefore, McCloskey is fundamentally denying to himself the probability or possibility that there is a God since he makes the great mistake of assuming that these arguments put forward by theists are evidence. In relation to Foreman's point of view, it can be argued that McCloskey is using and clarifying this series of arguments in a way in which they were not intended to be used. The initial argument that McCloskey focuses on to disqualify being reasonable is the cosmological argument advanced by theists. This argument rationalizes the existence of a God by stating that there must have been a creator of this reality and this universe. McCloskey contradicts the cosmological argument by arguing that the existence of a universe is not sufficient evidence for the existence of a God. The non-temporal argument explained in depth by Evans and Manis can be used to counter the argument made by McCloskey . By examining the reality around themselves, one may come to the conclusion that the reality they currently see has not necessarily always existed. Even scientists talk about the big bang theory where it didn't exist beforeNothing. This may lead to the conclusion that all things that have objective reality could not have existed as easily. According to Evans and Manis, the answer to McCloskey's argument can be refuted by the “contingency of the universe; if we look around us at the universe, each object we see (and all of them, taken collectively) appears to be the kind of thing that exists but could easily have not existed." (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 69). The contingency of the universe states that there are two types of beings within this universe, with necessary beings and contingent beings. Evans and Manis describe necessary beings as a thing that “does not depend for its existence on anything else, and since nothing can threaten its existence, its nonexistence is not really possible,” while contingent beings are described as someone the whose “existence will be incomplete”. unless it culminates in the causal activity of a necessary being” (Evans & Manis, 2009, pg. 69). Thus, while contingent beings depend for their existence and being on other factors, necessary beings do not require any additional explanation and are independent of factors external to their existence. In these circumstances, it is evident that while God is a necessary being, everything else remains a contingent being. Consequently, God needs to exist because the world depends on him to exist and because the world already exists. With a point of view that contradicts that of McCloskey, he cannot reject the fact that the reality around him exists and, according to the cosmological argument, this reality being contingent depends on the existence of God, which means that God exists. McCloskey states that the cosmological argument “does not authorize us to postulate an omnipotent, perfect, causeless cause” (McCloskey, 1968). As already mentioned, contingent beings depend on necessary being, which conveys that the reality we currently find ourselves in depends on their existence of the creator of that reality, in this case, God. The cosmological argument is simply a platform to have a fundamental possibility of God. Furthermore, as already mentioned, none of these arguments of theists, including the cosmological argument, fail to provide reasonable support when used alone. Furthermore, the cosmological argument does not attempt to support, per se, the true existence of God, but rather opposes the idea that God absolutely does not exist, a notion that atheists believe. True understanding of this subject can only be achieved through actual knowledge of God; it is therefore McCloskey's job, for himself, to seek knowledge of God. The teleological argument put forward by theists and design theory go hand in hand and, therefore, can be defined here as a single argument, which will be collectively termed teleological argument. The teleological argument, most famously in the example of someone stumbling upon a clock on a beach, states that, given the complexity of nature and the universe surrounding human beings, it is unreasonable to deny that there must be a designer of this nature to give is that perfect complexity, as a watchmaker would do when building and designing a complex and sophisticated watch. Therefore, the fact that God is a perceptive and insightful designer is demonstrated through the complex control and organization that the world around us has. McCloskey's thesis is that there are no unassailable teleological arguments because there are no examples of teleological arguments in which they are not contestable. However, this brings the point back to the fact that McCloskey's doubts regarding teleological arguments are due to the fact that he regards these arguments as evidence. Design theory is not oneincontrovertible proof of the existence of God, but instead offers an approach to understanding the universe that suggests that God exists. Ultimately, McCloskey is right in his argument that there are no indisputable examples of teleological arguments because teleological arguments were not meant to be indisputable to begin with; they were not meant to be considered evidence, they only provide probability and hope. Furthermore, it is not fair to force only theists to provide indisputable teleological examples where atheists themselves only serve the problem of evil as proof while rejecting the idea that the problem of evil is a problem beyond human understanding because human beings they are not equal to God and cannot understand God's work. While the following examples are not indisputable, they provide evidence that teleological arguments offer support for the existence of a God by examining the universe. The first example explored by Evans and Manis concerns how animals are self-controlling creatures and can preserve and sustain their own lives and beings. (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 78-79) It is known from evolutionary theory itself that atheists swear that humans came into existence long after animals, which proves that animals can actually fend for themselves. However, many argue that forcing animals to live in domestic conditions is unethical and goes against the self-regulating nature of animals. This animal complexity also exists in humans, and at a higher level. The human body is capable of advanced logic, reasoning and thinking, it is capable of fascinating things like breathing, which is a complex chemical activity of converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. Examples such as the one analyzing the complexity evident in animals and humans, along with Aquinas's argument that there is a beneficial order within the universe, show that the universe and reality inevitably explain and point towards the actuality of an advanced designer of this order. universe. The element that McCloskey uses to further disqualify teleological arguments is the theory of evolution. However, the factuality of the evolutionary view does not mean the rejection of the existence of a God. One can assume and accept the evolutionary theory as truth and yet see the possibility that God developed such an order and organization in the universe that the initial beings from he created are capable of evolving. According to Evans and Manis, “the defender of the teleological argument might argue that the evolutionary process, even if it is a mechanical process, is simply the means by which God, the intelligent designer, accomplishes his purposes” (Evans & Manis, 2009, page 83). Furthermore, even though there is evolution, there are still things that science cannot explain, especially important things like dreams, miracles, human psychology, and so on. The existence of such inexplicable situations and things continues to prove that there are indeed things that are beyond human understanding, which points towards the realization that there is a God. In his article, McCloskey continues to try to refute the teleological arguments by arguing on the 'imperfection that can be seen everywhere in the world. According to him, since there is imperfection in the world, one can easily argue against the theory of divine design. However, McCloskey should note that just because something is beautiful and fascinating in complexity does not mean it is perfect. Even in design theory, the watch we are referring to is not a perfect watch, but simply a watch of great complexity which suggests that an intelligent designer is responsible for its creation. God is the necessary being and.