Many question what is beyond this life. Some believe that there is simply nothing beyond this life; people are machines that have evolved over time to choose the fittest for life. Can this be possible that there is nothing beyond the life one lives? Is atheism a more reliable answer than theism? H.J. McCloskey attempts to combat the misconception of atheism and how one can be an atheist as well as a compassionate and understanding individual. In response to H. J. McCloskey’s view on atheism, this retort will address the reviews between atheism and theism. Argument of Proof McCloskey testifies that arguments in favor of God are proofs, which implies that there is not a definite case that testifies that there is a God. Just as people are …show more content…
McCloskey defends that free will would only indicate of good if a divine being created the world yet; there is a misunderstanding in this theory. This theory dose not account for the fact that free will is of the individual. “According to this solution, the reason that second-order evil occur, such as acts of cowardice and maliciousness, is that human being make bad use of their freedom” (Evans & Manis, 2009, p. 162). The idea of free will, freedom, given to people by a divine power ensured that individuals truly have freedom in their decision-making. Had a divine power ensured that everyone would do good at all times and always make the right decision, then the entire concept of freedom would be skewed under the notion that people were compelled by a creator. Also with this understanding, it takes all the need for accountability away and places blame on a divine being. No one would have to be held accountable for their actions under the idea that a higher power makes their decisions for them. Furthermore, in a world with no evil, there would not be a need to do good as everyone’s actions would be entirely wholesome. One must exist in order for the other to