"I will explain why I believe that atheism is a much more comfortable belief than theism, and why theists should be unhappy simply because they are theists." (McCloskey, 1968) In his article On Being an Atheist, HJ McCloskey explains why he is an atheist by examining the problem of evil and using the problem of evil to attempt to refute various theistic theories on this subject. In his article, McCloskey discusses a number of arguments regarding the problem of evil, including the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the teleological argument, and design theory. This article will challenge the arguments supporting atheism made in McCloskey's article by explaining that the arguments stated above cannot be seen as evidence, showing the fallacies of McCloskey's view in each respective argument, and referring to 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get the 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 reality of the existence of a God. Nonetheless, the fact that he alludes to these arguments as evidence means that McCloskey attributes to these arguments a degree of meticulous factuality with which the arguments should not be viewed in the first place. A proof is a precise, unmistakable statement that reveals an ultimate result. The arguments mentioned in McCloskey's article alone cannot demonstrate the truth about God's being, but these arguments provide factors regarding God's being. Cosmological, ontological, teleological, and design theory arguments present a feasible explanation of how God can exist despite the problem of evil. Only because these arguments do not provide a complete explanation of why or how God exists are they either arguments without well-founded points or arguments that should be rejected entirely. The most reasonable and probable modus operandi must be considered and these arguments justify this necessity. These arguments certainly do not raise irrefutable doubt about the existence of God, but it is more beneficial to consider the arguments made by these arguments than to reject them altogether. Thus, McCloskey fundamentally denies himself the probability or chance that there is a God since he makes the grave error of assuming that these arguments put forward by theists are proof. Regarding Foreman's view, it can be argued that McCloskey uses and elucidates this set of arguments in a way that they were not intended to be used. The initial argument that McCloskey focuses on to disqualify the reasoning is the cosmological argument made by theists. This argument rationalizes the existence of a God by asserting that there must have been a creator of this reality and this universe. McCloskey contradicts the cosmological argument by asserting that the existence of a universe is not sufficient proof for the existence of a God. The timeless argument explained in detail by Evans and Manis can be used to counter the argument made by McCloskey. By examining the reality around us, everyone can come to their own conclusion that the reality they currently see did not necessarily always exist. Even scientists talk about the big bang theorywhen nothing existed before. This can lead one to conclude that all things that have objective reality could just as easily have not existed. According to Evans and Manis, the answer to McCloskey's argument can be refuted by the “contingency of the universe; If we look at the universe around us, each object we see (and all of them, taken collectively) seems to be the kind of thing that exists but could easily have not existed. (Evans and Manis, 2009, p. 69). The contingency of the universe states that there are two types of beings in this universe, necessary beings and contingent beings. Evans and Manis describe necessary beings as something whose "existence does not depend on anything else, and since nothing can threaten its existence, its non-existence is not really possible", while contingent beings are described as someone whose “existence will be incomplete”. unless it results in the causal activity of a necessary being” (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 69). Thus, while contingent beings depend on other factors for their existence and being, necessary beings require no further explanation and are independent of external factors for their existence. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that even if God is a necessary being, all else remains contingent beings. Therefore, God needs to exist because of the world that depends on Him to exist and the world that already exists. With a 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, it 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, uncaused cause” (McCloskey, 1968). As mentioned above, contingent beings are dependent on necessary being, meaning that the reality one is currently in relies on the existence of the creator of that reality, in this case, God. The cosmological argument is just a platform for having a fundamental possibility of God. Furthermore, as mentioned above, none of these arguments put forward by theists, including the cosmological argument, fail to provide reasonable support when used on their own. Furthermore, the cosmological argument does not attempt to argue, per se, the true existence of God, but rather it opposes the notion that God does not exist at all, a notion in which atheists believe. True understanding of this argument can only be obtained through real knowledge of God; it is then the job of McCloskey, himself, to seek knowledge of God. The teleological argument made by theists and design theory go hand in hand and can therefore be considered here as one, which will be collectively called teleological arguments. The teleological argument, most famously given in the example of a person coming across a watch on a beach, asserts that given the complexity of nature and the universe that surrounds humans, it is unreasonable to deny that there must be a designer of this nature to give this perfect complexity, as a watchmaker would when building and designing a complex and sophisticated watch. Thus, the fact that God is a discerning and insightful designer is proven through the complex control and organization of the world around us. McCloskey's argument is that there is no unassailable teleological argument because there is no example of a teleological argument where it is not contestable. However, this brings us back to the fact that McCloskey's doubts about teleological arguments are due to the fact that he regards these arguments as evidence. The theorydesign is not indisputable proof of the existence of a God, but rather offers an approach to understanding the universe that suggests that there is a God. Ultimately, McCloskey is correct in his argument when he states that there are no indisputable examples of teleological arguments because teleological arguments were not intended to be indisputable in the first place; they were not meant to be taken as evidence, they only provide probabilities and hope. Furthermore, it is unfair to only require theists to provide teleological examples where atheists themselves only serve the problem of evil as evidence while rejecting the idea that the problem of evil is beyond human understanding because humans are not equal to God and cannot understand the works of God. Although the following examples are not indisputable, they prove that teleological arguments support the existence of a God by examining the universe. The first example explored by Evans and Manis is how animals are self-supervising creatures that can preserve and maintain their own lives and beings. (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 78-79) The very evolutionary theory that atheists swear by is that humans appeared long after animals, showing that animals can indeed succeed on their own. Regardless, many argue that forcing animals to live in domestic conditions is unethical and goes against the self-regulating nature of animals. This complexity that animals possess also exists in humans, and to a greater degree. The human body is capable of advanced logic, reasoning and thinking, it is capable of fascinating things such as respiration, a complex chemical activity of converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. Examples such as that which analyzes the complexity evident in animals and humans, as well as Aquinas' argument that there is a beneficial order within the universe, show that the universe and reality inevitably explain and point to the existence of an advanced designer of such an order. universe. The factor that McCloskey uses to further disqualify teleological arguments is the theory of evolution. However, the factual nature of the evolutionary view does not mean the rejection of the existence of a God. One can assume and accept evolutionary theory as truth and still see the possibility that God developed such order and organization within the universe that the initial beings he created were capable of evolution. According to Evans and Manis, "the defender of the teleological argument might assert that the evolutionary process, even if it is a mechanical process, is simply the means by which God, the intelligent designer, achieves his purposes" ( Evans and Manis, 2009, p. Additionally, despite evolution, there are still things that science cannot explain, especially major things like dreams, miracles, human psychology, etc. The existence of such inexplicable situations and things shows that there are indeed things beyond human understanding, which leads us to realize that there is a God. In his article, McCloskey continues to attempt to refute teleological arguments by arguing for the imperfection that can be observed everywhere in the world. According to him, because there are imperfections in the world, one can easily argue against the theory of divine design. However, McCloskey should note that just because a certain thing is beautifully and fascinatingly complex does not mean it is perfect. Even in design theory, the watch referred to is not a perfect watch, but.