McCloskey in his article claims

godlessness is a touch that has entered the mind of opus prior to the advent of scientific revolution. This ideology is not an original one(a) and has its roots even during the term of the kings and prophets in the Old Testament. The Bible records their existence in one of its verses The physiognomy hath said in his heart, there is no matinee idol1.They have been a minority in the past nevertheless as mans ability to invent and progress to progressed so does his self ego and felicitate expanded. More and more people are now embracing the belief that there is no idol and the belief in an all effectual organism is simply unreliable because there are no strengthened proofs that can prove its validity.2Some of the countries which receive a high rate of ungodliness include first world countries like Japan, Denmark, Norway, Finland, France, Germany and Sweden which topped the list.3 It has indeed acquire prominence in the world and it is attracting more supporters through the series of counter line of reasonings it throws to theism.McCloskey in his article claims that proofs or line of works which theists provide to support their belief have no weight.4 He speaks of this primarily in relation to the ontological argument, the argument which attempts to show that the very concept of God implies his reality.5 McCloskey believes that there is no figment in debating on this particular proof because it has no bearing and the ontological argument serves as the very foundation for other arguments which supports and defends Gods existence.If not for the purpose of proving His existence, the ontological argument is still indispensable because it distinguishes the characteristics of God whom we are defending. The first rule of philosophical discourse is lucidness and since God is the main topic, there is no way in which we should parry discussing the ontological argument. Actually, McCloskeys failure to analyze the ontological argument is one of the reasons why he failed to understand the theists arguments.The diversity of religious beliefs scattered in the world is not aiding the theistic endeavor. It has and complicated the defenses used by theists all over the world. Fortunately, Evans clarified some misconceptions about the characteristics of God in his article.For one, atheists refute the belief of an all powerful being because it will payoff to absurdity. According to them such a being should be able to create an object that is both a circle and a box or if not create a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot carry. tho such a rebuttal should not be considered as worthy to be simulateed. It is completely a mockery.Atheists fail to remember 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 conditioning all powerful is not to be equated to human vocabulary as being absolute. It is only used to elaborate on the fact that compared to man his power is unthinkable. 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 tolerate any change. He is self-existent and will remain that way forever.Further clarification of the temperament 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 mere existence of the world constitutes no reason for believe 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 enough to create the universe. But this position is in no way contradicting the belief that a being which is powerful enough did began the series of events which triggered the composition of the universe.It perf ectly meets the demand of the temporal role 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 describe God. How can you further address someone that is able to trigger the formation of galaxies? Will the word powerful or very powerful be sufficient ?For the pastime of emphasizing his greatness we use the term all powerful because no man can ever do the things that he have done. It is unimaginable for man to even produce a single strand of hair from nothing. Yes, scientists have managed to clone plants, animals and humans but he is only satisfactory of doing such if he has a specimen. He starts from something and makes it more complex but creation is not done in that process. It is from nothing to something.1 Psalm 141, The Holy Bible.com, accessed on 13 May 2010. 2 Martin, Michel, Report atheism on the Rise in U.S., 2009, NPR.org, accessed on 13 May 2010 from http//www.npr.org/templates/story/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 undertake Cambridge, UK (2005). 4 McCloskey, H.J. On Being an Atheist, p. 50 5 Evans, Stephems Classical Arguments for Goss reality, p. 63 6 ibid., p. 67 7 opcit, McCloskey, p. 51