The Existence of God: A Philosophical Perspective

This article explores the concept of God and the existence from a philosophical perspective. It discusses the arguments of McCloskey and the counterarguments of Evans and Manis. The article also touches upon the existence of evil and the concept of free will.

Running head: PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1PHILOSOPHY
According to Dr. Mark foreman, the concept of god is not a theological study and is not
supposed to be seen with a perspective of proofs and evidences. Dr. Mark Foreman argues that
the concept of God and the existence cannot be argued in a sense as McCloseky puts it. Dr.
Foreman states that it is nearly impossible to ascertain the existence of God in a theological
sense; rather it has to be seen in a way that explains the existence of God in a philosophical
sense. Since the existence of God is not a physical matter, but more of a subconscious belief that
rests only within the inner thoughts of an individual. As the outward appearance of our thoughts
is not possible, similarly the existence of God cannot be proven in physical expression. The
intriguing processes that shape our lives or rather our destiny is not just mere cause and effect
but has deep impact in our actions. The proof of existence of God can be only explained through
justifiable reasons and not by proofs. The argument of McCloskey claims that the there are no
amount proof that can prove the existence of any Godly figure. There are no proof for the design
of our environment as well that proves the existence. To this reference Dr. Foreman states that
the processes and designs cannot provide the proof, since the realization, that these designs as
outcomes of a cosmic process is supported by some external source of creation and design that
we refer to as God. The concept of God is more of a faith, rather than just physical expression.
Dr. Foreman also justifies that the concept of God as defined by McCloskey is limited to a rigid
concept of a personified powerful figure playing with his creation and throwing humans in the
face of plight and suffering. The concept of God can vary from community to community and
therefore it must be discussed in terms of the varying perception of God.

2PHILOSOPHY
The necessary argument that Evans and Manis puts forward in their book ‘The
philosophy of religion’ confronts the argument of McCloskey stating that everything that we see
around us is created in some form by humans or nature. Therefore, the statement of McCloskey
that the mere existence of the world is not a reason enough to believe in the existence of a
supreme being cannot be approved, since all creation has to be created by someone and cannot
just exist by chance. McCloskey completely fails to put a credible argument of the existence of
the universe and states that it is just a mere existence or a happening by chance. The
cosmological argument that the universe being created by some power supreme in capacity or
just the creation and existence of the universe as a contingent generates the inner curiosity to
think about the creator. It might seem from the argument of McCloskey that the legitimacy of the
existence of the universe does not suffice the existence of God or a supreme being, cannot be
accepted as he has completely disregarded that there can be a creator or founder of the universe.
A creation, such vast and expansive with infinite possibilities and diversities cannot just exist out
of the nowhere and must have a source of creation may not be done by any being as we refer, but
some kind of energy or power that was able to simulate the creation. Thus the cosmographical
argument is one of the important elements that can initiate the thinking about some supreme
being or to what we refer to as God.

3PHILOSOPHY
According to McCloskey the necessity of the proof there must be ‘undisputable’
examples of designs, which has been criticized by Evans and Manis on the grounds that nothing
can be undisputable. Referring to the meaning of undisputable, it can be understood that
something is unquestionable, which is completely irrelevant since every material attached to our
world of existence and universe is disputable. Thus there can be no valid argument without
dispute. The validity of any argument is dependent on the logical conclusion through reasonable
dispute. The argument put forward by McCloskey sound unreasonable due to the illegitimate
conclusion that he offers about undisputable evidence of design.
The world along with universe is itself an evidence of sophisticated design and the way it
performs gives a strong evidence of a designer. The solar system for example is a piece of art
and the position of the earth in the system making it the most suitable planet for the existence of
life among the system is in fact intriguing. Though the planet has evolved over time to attain its
unique character, the question lies with the choice of the planet. The other planets could have
equally evolved to facilitate life, but did not except the Earth. The occurrence of tides due to the
influence of the celestial bodies is also an astonishing fact. Had the Moo and the sun been in
different distances with the earth, the tidal effect would be completely missing. The tides are an
important part of the system of the earth and the physical explanation is not being questioned
here, rather it is being stated that the how an arrangement can be so perfect so as to provide all
the effects that we can explain systematically through our capacity of knowledge of the physical
world. The evolution of life for example is another example that can be attributed to a perfect
design. It is understood and accepted that evolution was a necessary adaptation by the living
beings, but the question is that the intrinsic processes that control the living organisms are so
complex that they have a high chance of going wrong if not designed by an intelligent being. The

4PHILOSOPHY
processes that happen naturally are attributed as natural causes, or as instinct. The basic instincts
that help life to adapt and sustain are examples of intelligent design as because these instinct
cannot be attributed human creation. We all have basic instincts and that is what drives us to
perform our living.
With context to McCloskey’s argument it needs to be understood that imperfection of the
existence of evil by the Supreme Being cannot be validated. He finds no probable reason as to
why a creator known for his divinity and goodness could create such evilness or imperfections.
As Evans Manis puts it, that were are finite beings and we are just observing the evil from an
initial perspective. We cannot argue that these evils or imperfections cannot have a greater good
in the long run, which we might not be able to understand for the time being. Referring to the
Hindu mythological text ‘The Bhagawat Gita’, where along a discourse with Arjuna, Sree
Krishna states that whatever happens turns out to be for the greater good. This inference can
justify the argument of evil as put by McCloskey.
As McCloskey argues that if the creator had been so righteous, why didn’t he design man
to be virtually right by the choices they make? Evan and Manis confronts the argument stating
that the inflicting the right choice only would be contradictory to what the concept of free will
states. God if he may have created the world has left man with their choices to perform. It is in
fact the action they do reflect back on their Karma and the choices they make decides their fate.
The perspective that McCloskey, finds to answer the probable choice of the supreme being,
cannot be supported on grounds that these perceptions do not confirm with the concept of
spirituality or of with the creation of world by a God. As Alvin Platinga responds to it by stating
that the power to create a utopian world has been left with the choices that men decide to take
and not imposed by the Supreme Being, since he wanted men to choose freely the right path. The

5PHILOSOPHY
choices were let by God to be taken independently, which otherwise would had been
contradictory to concept of free will.
With reference to “The Absurdity of Life without God” by William Craig, we can
respond to McCloskey’s argument that Atheism is more comforting than Theism. As Craig
reflects that the necessity of Supreme Being allows us to face ourselves in times of our crisis to
draw inspiration and hope for a better tomorrow. Our lives are governed by destiny and there are
circles of concern that cannot be controlled with our wish, only we can make an effort to make a
difference. We as humans are limited by capacity and at times there are incidents which require
something more than just comforting. The inner self requires strength from within and the
existence of God lies within us, therefore as Craig argues that there is no meaning to life without
god is quite true and replies aptly to the argument of McCloskey that Atheism is more
comforting than Theism.

6PHILOSOPHY
References
Craig, William Lane. "The absurdity of life without God." The meaning of life 45 (2000).
Evans, C. Stephen, and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of religion: thinking about faith.
InterVarsity Press, 2010.
McCloskey, H. J. "On Being an Atheist." (1972).