orld's existence does not provide a reason for believing in God. Evans points out that none of the things in our universe are ones that have to exist; they are all contingent on something else.[3] The fact that they are contingent on something else indicates that there is a something or someone else they are contingent on, thus demonstrating the existence of that being.[4] McCloskey also counters the cosmological argument by claiming that we are not entitled to postulate an uncaused cause that is all powerful and all perfect. As Evans points out, this argument is just the entry point into a knowledge of God because it omits a number of other important elements of the theistic concept of God.[5] Therefore, I would answer McCloskey by saying that God is more than an uncaused cause, and our relative ability or lack of
...