To be honest with you, I think some of McCloskey's questions about the existence of God are valid and as a Christian I know I have questioned the existence of God at some point in my life. I really had to learn the hard way. The article shows that McCloskey strives to reject all claims of the theistic view. According to the blackboard videos, when someone decides to prove something or someone, it means that there is certainty and assurance that the thing is absolutely true. The truth is that we cannot one hundred percent prove the existence of God and that is why an atheist like McCloskey would say that without proof, God does not exist. McCloskey does his best to scientifically prove that the creation of the universe therefore claims the non-existence of God. The world we live in is so complex that I don't think an ordinary human mind can try to analyze itself and understand how the world came to be. In McCloskey's view, the fact that the world exists is not sufficient evidence for people to think or assure that there is a supreme being who controls and creates the universe. The problem with his view is that even if science can explain the origin of the universe, there are still some things that happen for which science has no explanation. For example, the guided process by which a child comes into the world from conception to birth. Another example of things that cannot be explained is sleep. Why do living beings feel the need to sleep, these and many other questions still remain unanswered by science. The only thing that McCloskey fails to understand is that the role of science in this world is not to take the place of God but to stand in the middle of a paper, etc. and for this he can feel a sense of pride. But he ultimately knows that this pride is an illusion and that if he is right about the non-existence of God, then his life is ultimately absurd. In conclusion, I think that all of McCloskey's arguments and assertions are useless because he is trying to prove the existence of God. God of the Bible and I think it's impossible to do it. I agree with Evans and Manis when they say that the evil that God permits is justified because permitting that evil makes possible the achievement of a greater good, or the prevention of a worse evil. Works Cited Charles, T. (nd). A response to “Being an Atheist” by HJ McCloskey. From Carry your cross: http://charlestinsley.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/a-response-to-hj-mccloskeys-on-being-an-atheist/Biblegateway (John 3:19)McCloskey, HJ “Being an atheist”. Question 1. February 1968