Richard Swinburne - Arguments for Atheism?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 окт 2024
- With a free Closer To Truth membership, you can get special exclusives and discounts. Register today at closertotruth.....
Turn the tables on God’s existence. Start with atheism, not with theism. Atheists take their best shots at disproving God; theists in turn defend God, deflecting anti-God arguments. Atheists come harder still; theists resist, fight back. We keep the arguments tough-minded and the thinking critical.
Support the show with a tax-deductible donation of any amount: closertotruth....
Richard Swinburne is a Fellow of the British Academy. He was Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford from 1985 to 2002 and is currently Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion.
For more videos on arguments against God: shorturl.at/Ekbh5
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Gucci Mane & Sexyy Red - You Don't Love Me [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/j7IBqyFKT4c/mqdefault.jpg)
I thought I was an atheist going into this. Now I'm even MORE of an atheist than i thought I could be.
“Even more of an atheist”
SMOKESCREEN!! Sorry but this is an unbelievably lame argument! The irony is that your triggered response actually has striking similarities to the comments section of any post criticising and refuting Islam! Which is beyond ironic as this is the exact argument they use to defend Mohammed’s behaviour.
The fact is that Mr David Hume was much more intelligent and better versed in logic and analytical philosophy than you or any celebrity atheist, but even David Hume proves the conviction that atheism can make even very intelligent men sound vacuous!!
Why would an all-powerful God depend on human beings to spread the word of his existence and / or nature? If it's so important that people know He exists (eternal damnation vs. eternal salvation), why would an all-loving God make it so challenging for so many people to believe in Him? Why give humans the kind of minds capable of explaining the natural world so successfully via the scientific method (which requires evidence, experimentation, and rigour) and then expect those same people to simply "have faith" in His existence? Or base their knowledge of His existence and will on an ancient book and personal experiences?
" God " is the most talked about subject on earth and yet no one knows anything about her/him.
For the reason he explained why God must have some distance. God looking over our shoulders all the time would take away our freedom to not believe in God and also result in us only doing good because God is always watching rather than free choice. God created us out of love and wants to share His divine life with us and wants us to freely choose to participate in that life. Scientific truth is part of God’s truth but only a part as science is only one path to knowledge and limited in what it can explain. Science can say nothing about morality or meaning and purpose or love. Science is also dependent on faith in immutable laws of the universe as they can’t be proven.
I suggest listening to bishop Barron on the relationship between science and faith.
@@johnbrion4565 would have been perfect until you see people selling babies for prostitution in the philippines, you can cut out the kindness and powerful part out of God there ..
@@johnbrion4565 And yet religion relentlessly drives home the idea that God /is/ looking over our shoulders all the time. All knowing, all seeing, omniscient and omnipotent. Always judging.
@@StodaGryph yes of course God knows all. But the reality is God is hidden in a sense and our belief in Him is now provable. It takes faith therefore our choice to believe and do good is a free one.
I have immense respect for Prof. Swinburne's intellect and his eloquence but we need to ask him the same question as of the most raucous of street preachers: How does he actually know what he claims to know about the mind of God?
Is this really the best arguments they have for a god?!? Dreadful.
your Supernatural Awareness is a good reason to believe its origin is an Aware SOURCE or God, and NOT a product of Explosion of Unconscious NOTHINGNESS or Bigbang
They're not good arguments at all.
Can you refute any of them here?
@@ActualDav I guarantee that everybody of faith respects your right to your opinions. I also guarantee that whether you have faith or not is immaterial in every imaginable way.
These are called theodicies in the face of objections to God's existence. There are plenty of metaphysical arguments for God's existence that are sound if you're keen on learning. Check out Ed Feser's work on the 5 proofs.
Atheism isn’t an argument: it’s simply the admission that bereft arguments in favor of an imaginary deity aren’t at all convincing.
staring at Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama is convincing to you ???
@@evaadam3635What?!?
This is just a dictionary definition of atheism. In practice, atheism is a worldview and has its arguments to support its fundamental thesis.
Your definition is describing agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism makes positive truth claims about God's non existence. New atheists have had to move the goal post to agnosticism since their arguments are absurd.
Why people were given choice to do evil, but wasn't given choice to do magic? Inability to do magic limits our choice too.
Atheists judging from their comments seem to want Harry Potter to be true
There seems to be something particularly important about the ability to do right or wrong. It's not clear to me that all limitations are the same in this respect. It I'm not going to be omnipotent, there are going to be things I can and can't do. For example, I can't jump to the moon right now, but this doesn't seem to be a significant constraint on my having very robust freedom as we typically use the word. Similarly, just because I can't do magic, I don't think of myself as lacking freedom in a very significant way. I'm just not the kind of thing that is supposed to do that. Birds are meant to fly, but I'm not meant to, so I can't. However, if I lack the ability to choose between good and evil, it seems I've lost something very important to my freedom. Not only that, but something about my very humanity has plausibly been taken away.
@@daman7387 It seems to, because you used to choose between good and evil, but you didn't use to choose between jumping on to the moon or not. If you're not used to have such a choice, it looks like some hypothetical and non-important scenario. Similarly if the ability to choose evil was denied to us, we wouldn't see it as something important.
@@XOPOIIIO
“But wasn’t given choice to do magic”
Yeah makes great sense!!
Militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!!
CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!!
None of Richards rebuttals seemed logical and certainly did NOT supply convincing counterpoints to these atheistic arguments.. To me, an all loving benevolent creator god would not have created a biosphere where animals viciously attack and eat OTHER animals often while they are still alive to the sounds of screams and helpless agony..Why wouldn't we be loving and eating some equivalent of manna?
Ps: On the other hand, this is EXACTLY what natural selection (survival of the fittest) WOULD predict.. One opinion, peace..
This life is not heaven. Heaven is in afterlife. Your rejection is based on the presupposition that if there was good loving God, then he would make us all happy or at least not unhappy.
@mioszbies903 Well said friend, this certainly is NOT heaven.. There we agree. It is the natural world.. A violent and unpredictable world.. The study of this natural world and our extended environment makes no allowances for unsupportable assumptions of immaterial influences.. No nonfalsifiable claims..If these things happened, we would still be in the Bronze Age.. Yes? All we know we have is THIS world, and if a god did this, he has been watching the pain show for over two hundred million years now..
*I concur w/ you 100%. His rebuttals are utterly unsatisfactory. The free will rebuttal, for instance, primarily tries to address "moral evil" whilst struggling to explain natural evil, such as suffering caused by natural events such as earthquakes, wild fires, epidemics, diseases (i.e cancer), etc. These occurrences are NOT the result of "free will" (human choices), yet they cause significant suffering. Nevertheless, he does offer a bogus, dogmatic, and laughable personal explication for the aforementioned natural events.*
Spot on! The stale and canned rebuttal of "free will" to counter the problem of "evil" is strictly anthropocentric. It literally ignores animal suffering in the world. Also, the "free will" rebuttal does not explain earthquakes, epidemics, cancer, etc. that inflict enormous evil and suffering among humans and animals. Cheers.
He is right; every usefulness is not limited to the sense of touch or being close to us. Sense of eyesight needs pleasure too and the clashing of astral objects are beautiful for the eye and they have not harmed us yet.
Regarding why there are so many different religions and diversities of beliefs and practices, a part of the Bible says this, "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge. 3 For because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:2, 3) Most humans lack the accurate knowledge about God and they seek to establish their own.
LOL... I thought the same thing re the violence question. Richard's reaction = priceless.
If "free will" is truly free, it doesn't come with threats.
Another fascinating test for Richard to take and, as usual, he comes out of it with top marks.
Robert and Richard seem to be opposites in temperament : one is more pessimistic and the other more optimistic. Both are humanistic in their attitude to life and to each other, and this, in the end, is the most important as well as beautiful quality that humans can express. Wether they believe in God or not. Wether they are right or not
Not so. One is asking questions in earnest. The other is pretending to know things he does not know. One is honest, the other a liar. They are not equals.
@@asyetundeterminedit is the difference between Faithless and the Faithful.... one is unhappy, confused and lost while the other has peace of mind, happy, enlightened with faith in God.. By the way, it is NOT LYING when one only shows faith...
The premise "arguments for atheism" doesn't even make sense.
You can't have an argument for "not believing anything".
Just:
1. arguments for believing something
2. arguments for not believing something
The problem of evil is framed in the context of a certain view of creation? God creates the individual selves and places them within an universe where they experience pain? Framed in such a context the question would naturally arise as to how a loving God could do so.
But supposing this is not what really happened. Suppose the individual selves like God are uncreated; and suppose they themselves, due to God-aversion, turn away from God and become attracted towards matter and fall into a state of spiritual degradation in which their consciousness is, as it were, totally eclipsed and they become "comatose" and extremely matter-like. In such a situation all the ills and imperfections of matter would necessarily cling on to the individual selves. Further, suppose that God, in order to rescue the "fallen" souls from this state of spiritual degradation, endows them all, out of pure grace, with a body that is equipped with all the necessary senses and organs for the individual selves to retrain their consciousness by acquiring knowledge and to come out of their comatose state.
Would such a state of affairs not dramatically alter the situation? Instead of criticism, should God now not be praised instead for rescuing the individual selves? Is it not the God-averse souls themselves who have by their own infatuation with matter brought about their own spiritual ruin by falling headlong into this unconscious material substance? And if they are now experiencing pleasure and pain by virtue of being attached to the material body, then is it God who should be blamed for it? God has only provided the means for our rescue from this material world by providing a body.
IMO, the uncaused "first" source and center (God) did not create the physical/material. But if you believe that God did, then you have to concur that God falls more under the domain of science rather than strictly religion.
@@realitycheck1231 you are correct. I concur. God didn't create the primary matter. It also exists eternally like the uncreated souls. 👍
The same arguments Atheist's give for God's non-existent are the same arguments I've thought about before knowing they are Atheist arguments. But i dont use them as an argument against God's existence. I've used them in my own mind as an argument for the impotence of God, which sometimes upsets me.
There are a lot of great episodes in this series but I don't know understand why Kuhn devotes any time in talking to theologians or Christian apologists who all have zero evidence of anything except by supposing that he very much wants to believe these baby-language evil/good, god/gods nonsense and wants the audience to believe it too.
“Nonsense”
“Baby language”
“Believe it to”
Oh the irony!! Listening to militant atheists pontificating about ultimate “TRUTH” and “BABY LANGUAGE” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
Furthermore, listening to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists pontificating about ultimate “TRUTH” and the dangers of “NONSENSE” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless HOLLOW AND SOULLESS, OVERGROWN AMOEBAS WITH DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the front of his car with the branch of a tree in order to BEAT IT INTO SUBMISSION!
It's very Basil Fawlty like at times and very Monty Python like at times! But without the comedy value!
CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!!
5:52 I think that the majority of scientists they think that they are too smart to believe in God. Great job Richard 👍👏👏👏
Religious people are the oldest fanfic enjoyers
Atheist arguments do not "demonstrate the non-existence of God." That's impossible. They show that gods are unlikely.
What illogical arguments... firstly God is either not competent or benevolent and merciful or doesnt exist at all... hence exist evil, pain, diseases and misery in this world ...!!! The word God has positive connotations... and even if there's a superpower, it's not good for everyone every time... hence, it can't be called God. God has to be good to everyone everytime !!!! Those who are good all their lives yet live and die in pain and misery have no reason to believe in God...!!! God is man's creation. Its the other way round.
Is everything you wrote “TRUE” with a capital T or was it just your “mans creation” talking? I’ll wait!!
By the way you just totally and utterly refuted yourself!!
As I pointed out already militant atheism is a walking ball of self contradiction and cognitive dissonance!!
CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!!
he can't look at kuhn or the camera as he answers
sometimes publicly stating your beliefs reveals how absurd they are
"just listen to yourself!"
can be a pretty good antidote to nonsense
Mr. Swinburne seems comfortably smug in his righteousness.
Millions of NDEs are reported every year, my mum and aunty both had one, and they can say 1000% that God is real..
richard swinburne - world expert in post hoc gobbledygook
I strongly disagree that God not being hidden would make all of humanity suddenly all good and trying to please God. Swinburne implies that 100% of people would be living righteous lives if they knew God directly, but there are people who are 100% sure that God exists and they still can be in the top of the most awfull people ever lived. The right assumption is that MORE people would be living righteous lives, not all of them, there still will be a free choise for that as we see it with faithfull people. His assumption would have been true only if all 100% faithfull people were living according to their gods standarts of good. We don't see that. While a more evident God might encourage a greater number of people to live righteously, it wouldn't guarantee that everyone would do so. It contradicts human free will, personal motivations, and the complex nature of moral choices mean that some individuals might still choose paths that diverge from what is considered good, even in the face of undeniable divine presence. I am sure God would know this, which means he deliberately, by his choise made a decision not to show himself which results just less people living rightious lives. All of this is meaningfull only we assume that hell and eternal torture exists, if not, then it actually doesn't matter how much evil there is the world because the assumption is that this life is temporary and afterlife is eternal. So in comparison, a century of most horrible suffering is literally nothing compared to best case endless afterlife. To me these contradictions just point out that we have no fucking idea what's true.
The following question stumbles all believers:
What top five characteristics do all myths share?
I wouldn’t know what the top five characteristics of all myths are, so you have me stumped.
Honestly stumbles me too. You have something on your mind but instead of sharing you want people just to guess what have you meant?
“Myths”
Oh the irony!! The irony is that according to prominent atheist philosopher Mary Midgley….
“Evolution, then, is the creation myth of our age. By telling us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but our feelings and actions too, in a way which goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory”
“Fatalism is now offered, not as just one possible philosophical attitude among others with reasons given for and against it, but as a fact backed by the tremendous authority of science.” (Mary Midgley).
In her books, the prominent atheist philosopher Mary Midgley tells us that the theory of evolution is not only a scientific theory, but also a political one. The new middle-class plutocrats of the Enlightenment needed a 'creation myth' that would explain why they deserved to rule. The answer was Darwin's theory: the survival of the fittest. They were there because they were the best!!
This politicalisation and weaponising of science and assumption of fatalism and nihilism is the reason why there are people who have struggled with the theory in the first place, so they are hardly to blame when it is constantly rammed down their throats that life is ultimately meaningless and only the “best” deserve to survive according to the “science”!!
Similarly, according to the prominent atheist philosopher Michael Ruse…
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity.” (Michael Ruse).
“The literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” (Michael Ruse).
Equally, according to Dr Raymond Tallis…
“Within the secular world picture, Neuromania and Darwinitis are the biggest piles of rubbish.” (Raymond Tallis)
Moreover, it speaks volumes that according to the prominent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel…
“The defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement” (Thomas Nagel).
It speaks volumes that Thomas Nagel, Raymond Tallis, Mary Midgley and Michael Ruse are prominent philosophers and scientists who are not coming from any particular religious perspective!!….
Tons of Echo in that room.....
So if God Reveals Himself, we lose FreeWill. And He must have at some point for us to have "imagined" Him. Other than say Ancient Greeks looking at Ant Hills and imagining that People have a similar Gigantic beings watching over them there was no reason for primitive People who had built nothing and barely tamed Fire to have decided there was a Creator.
He has revealed himself and we do have free-will. Those are not mutually exclusive. He doesn't reveal himself in this way because it wouldn't matter. The men with Paul on the road to Damascus said they heard thunder... not God's voice despite Paul hearing God's voice clearly. The Sanhedrin sentenced Jesus to death despite performing miracles the likes of which no one had ever seen all but proving he was/is God. A third of the angels in Heaven fell due to a revolt which they had absolute knowledge of the Existence of God (also annihilating the idea that overt revelation omits free-will). They knew God existed. They knew He created them. They probably knew he was more powerful than them and yet they denied his authority. Veiled or unveiled revelation means nothing to a heart and mind turned toward itself. That is why it neither matters nor why this is a good argument... the guy we are responding to, not you.
So God gives you the choice between good and evil, but if you happen to choose evil you're condemned to Hell for eternity?
Some choice, huh?
But if existence is for the rest of eternity God may need to separate beings according to morality, otherwise the harmless will be perpetual victims of those who are intent on doing harm. Even though that isn't exactly how the Bible puts it.
@@halcyon2864But if God is the true creator He may be above any one religion. It just may be that some religions are closer to the truth.
@@halcyon2864But the ultimate reality or truth from a materalist atheist understanding of reality is meaninglessness and no purpose.
@@halcyon2864There may be a transcendent meaninglessness
God is not obligated to live up to our standards and play by our rules. "All loving" and "merciful" are but two characteristics attributed to god, but if a list were compiled from religious writings, certainly it would be a very long list. What can be explained has to conform to the medium of "words", which is terribly limited. Our scope of scientific knowledge will never approach completeness, so the existence of god will always be plausible.
The issue isn’t with specific characteristics, but rather that they contradict each other. Who says God isn't obligated to our standards? How could we even know that? By definition? If you accept the logic that God doesn't adhere to our standards, then you should also refrain from discussing what God is, what standards He follows or doesn't follow, and what He wants. Such statements are self-contradictory. What I mean is, saying "God is not obligated to live up to our standards" makes him completely alien, which in turn should make any further discussions about God completely pointless. I heard this arguement many times, and usually what person means by that is that they know better who is God and what characteristics he has.
What did they put in the empty skull of that robot? 🤯
He is just injecting more layers of unjustified assertions. He answers exactly zero of any of the questions. Word salad with a condescending English accent.
You can just feel the superiority dripping off the syllables
Unfortunately atheism is very reactionary, and is primarily in reference to a specific historical and cultural conflict in western power structures. Rare to find arguments for atheism that are inclusive of all interpretations of deity, or that make a serious claim about consciousness. Materialism is a cultural bias in western science - a recent one at that - and atheism is the application of that bias towards the subjective experience of people around the world and across history. Atheism these days (as it is often applied) is the same sort of mental oppression it reacted against because it not only mandates a dogma but negates all experiences that counter such dogma from all people at all times in all places. Atheists are still caught in “well the church burned people” (a Eurocentric and historical reaction) and “why do you believe in an imaginary man in the clouds” (a simplistic and bad-faith response to all variations of religious and spiritual traditions) and being surprised at evil (a human consciousness problem). I doubt Atheism as we know it now will survive with the shift away from materialism as materialism continues to fail to account for the qualities and depth of conscious experience
I would not defend such god even if I’m sure of his existence!
Exaclty. We already have people who are 100% sure God exists and watches their every step. Are they all good? Hell no. God revealing himself doesn't cancel free will and if more people do good knowing God exists what's so horribly bad about that? I don't believe a God would play for statistics, as if he wants 50/50 of people go to hell or heaven. If I don't raise my children and instead just wanted them to choose to become good, what of a father am I? A bad father. This logic makes God a bad father of humanity, which contradicts to being all good.
Gawd? Its turtles all the way down, then you get the timeless all powerful turtle. Now let any theist proof me wrong.
The turtle moves.
These are completely fatuous 'arguments'
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y Yes, atheism is absurd and incoherent.
@@kesroner Yeah, the fact that I don't believe your assertion that your magic sky daddy exists is absurd and incoherent.
😂😂😂😂😂
@user-gk9lg5sp4y Yes, atheism taken to its logical end is absurd. Utilizing infantile language against theists like "sky daddy" doesn't detract from atheism's absurdity, but only adds to it since you can only mock it without interacting with theism in a serious and professional manner.
I'd imagine you read Dawkins once and now think you're equipped to dismantle the entire world history of theism. Good luck, lol.
@@kesroner @kesroner Athiesm has no 'logical end' it has no goal, no ideology and no world view. It is simply and only the lack of belief in a deity.
As for my my 'infantile language' your comment deserved nothing more.
So why don't you believe in pixies and fairies then Richard? If magic is allowed, anything is granted. All this soul stuff is something Plato invented to explain why triangles and circles seem to pop every now and then in the everyday world.
Your free will allows you to believe for any reason, good reason or bad reason.... belief in a loving God is a good reason to explain your AWARE existence... while belief in Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pixies, etc., is a bad reason because this exposes that you have ZERO IQ..
Religious people argue that their belief is logical, that's why. The problem comes with what's logical.
@@v11a03 Logical is an insight you get when you have investigated thoroughly into things and it evolves and improves. Its a vital part of body/spirit (whole body mechanism which the mind is enmeshed, like connection from mind to body and to substance and sometimes back up the chain).
The word spirit can be useful to refer to synergistic connections with the mind and being of a person and their extensions into the processes of the world.
Like people might distinguish body, brain, and person and also environment and maybe world. Describing the synergy between these as a singular dynamic where person merges into brain, brain into body and body into its environment.
What must be done is to ensure that everyone is playing their best game, that they are adhering to the best standards of rigor and study. And all things that corrupt the mind and make it less capable of that pursuit need to be countered.
So if Richard or anyone are not playing the best game, that needs be countered. If people were playing their best game, we would all be working together at a round table following agreed rules of decorum and procedure.
An isocracy maybe. Circles. Agreement to communication and collaboration. And true collective and true spirit society. Partnered Synergy.
“Something Plato invented”
Triggered Reddit atheist alert!! Plato invented immaterial, invariant conceptual realities such as prescriptive laws of logic and the unbelievable effectiveness of the abstract world of mathematics? That’s just laughable.
Q; How many theists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer; Two!! One person to actually change the lightbulb and one person to videotape the job so militant atheists can’t say that the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea just did it!!
Incredible genius...
Wow if these are the real reasons to believe in a God ...I've just become an atheist!
There's no evil in heaven, so there'll be no free will or no responsibility in heaven. Although some angels sinned (evil) in heaven before.
What a pile of desperate babble. This is the consequence of spending all your time in your own head trying to justify incoherent ideas of omni-beings.
Maybe your reaction is a result of your emotional misotheism? Your argument points at both ends. The only difference between you and Swinburne is that he actually bothers to formulate arguments.
“Desperate babble”
“Spending all your time in your own head”
That’s beyond ironic because it’s actually a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that leads to solipsism, that is the belief that it’s all just inside your head - right?
Also look up Ad Hominem Fallacy and Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy. The fact is that personal attacks and Ad hominem fallacies are considered a concession of defeat by the judges in a formal debate!
I accept your concession of defeat!
I love the stories that Alvin Plantinga tells about solipsism. Plantinga said he actually met a real solipsist professor at a presentation to students - a genuine solipsist - who really believed that he was the only thing in existence in the universe and that everyone else (including Alvin Plantinga) was just a figment of his solipsistic imagination - right?
And as Alvin Plantinga is walking out of the meeting a student stopped Alvin Plantinga and said, “We take really good care of that professor because if he goes, we all go!!!” [laughter]
I believe Plantinga also said that Bertrand Russell flirted with solipsism for a while - yes? No surprise there as most militant atheists would dogmatically promote any absurdity as long as it enabled them to hide from God!!
Moreover, apparently a lady who was very impressed with Bertrand Russell and a big fan actually wrote to Bertrand Russell and seriously said, “I really like that view - solipsism. I don't understand why there are not more of us.” 😂
Yeah makes great sense!!
If there is a god,it wouldn't hurt it to reveal itself.
You lost Heaven because you lost faith in a loving God, so, only by regaining this faith that you can return back Home...
You lost your marbles. Your invisible friend isnt real. Same with santa and the tooth fairy.@@evaadam3635
That might be a possibility. But then we cannot be blamed for it. @@halcyon2864
@evaadam3635 Have you ever _directly observed_ this 'Heaven' or 'God'?
@@evaadam3635 Your assumption that people choose to believe. They don't. Beliefs are shaped by environment. Some bushmen in jungles have no way to ever know of, for a example, a christian God. Therefore they can't just choose to trust in a christian God. That's extreme example, but simpler examples would be simply people born into other religions or atheistic families.
God designed our reality in part so that atheism is possible
How did you come to that baseless and ridiculous assertion?
Waste of my time! God knows the future, so they say, and the controversy is he at the same time provides us with free will ? Contradictions all over the place.
.....god also allows chapstick.......
😂
Echo chamber ;) hehehe. Wow these answers are super mega incoherent. Well done.
Asking a theist if their God exists is like asking a rock what color the sky is.
The brain circumscribes color to objects, tho. And rocks don't have eyes or brain.
Thou shalt not kill
That isn't even what the Bible says.
If there is no evil in Heaven and people have free will then the problem of evil still exists
Using a core part of Christianity to point out the inconsistency makes the objection easy to understand and incredibly difficult to counter.
I think christian arguement will be that if you are in heaven then by apriory you won't do evil. Also, there is no way to sin in heaven as sin is by definition something that can be done in life. We have free will, not free choises. If you can't choose to grown wings and fly doesn't mean you don't have free will.
@v11a03 The point is that is that if yahweh can make a situation where free will exists without the choice to do evil then the argument that for free will to be meaningful the choice to do evil must exist is invalid.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y if Gods goal to test humans then evil has meaning. But i agree that Epicurian paradox is still a very strong argument at least against qualities of the god. If he is almighty and not willing to create a perfect world, then he can't be all good. Or he is just not almighty
@v11a03 I see your point but I would argue that if what the vast majority of christians believe is true yahweh already knows what everyone will choose so it's pointless suffering. That's not even going into the idea of creating feeling beings he knows damn well, heh, will fail and go to his hell and suffer for Eternity.
Richard Swinburne is a brilliant and rigorous philosopher.
That can be. He just didn't show it here very well. A bad day at the office I guess.
I love this channel and I watch all of your vids multiple times. But this one is BS.
being Godless, unhappy, confused and lost is not fun.. this faithful guest that can help you is not BS
@@evaadam3635Are you inferring that those who do not believe this 'God' to be a reality are _necessarily_ "unhappy, confused, and lost"?
Not really. He makes counterarguments from his point of view. Some of them are pretty good. But disagreeing with someone doesn't automatically make them into a liar, especially on a subject no person in the history of mankind has had a definitive answer to. It's a subject that everyone is free to have their own beliefs about, but some just can't cope with others believing differently from them. I never quite understood that as no other person's belief of non belief in a deity has ever caused me any kind of stress or pain. Sure, one can point to ancient times when religion was used as a tool of suppression and discipline by monarchies and powerful religious authorities, but those times don't exist any longer. We live in a modern world now where people are free to believe what they want without threat of persecution by any government...in MOST places anyways, unless of course you are in North Korea or China or somewhere like that but those authoritarian states have nothing to do with religion. There are a handful of middle eastern theocracies remaining, but if you are not living there, then it doesn't impact you.
@@100percentSNAFU you may be thinking too deeply about this. It’s not about social or political impact. It’s the farce of a man, straight-faced, explaining how he knows the unknowable. It’s an immense arrogance and is quite off-putting for those not similarly indoctrinated.
order from chaos
A snowflake walks into the room.
I think the top arguments for atheism are:
1. The argument from the a priori simplicity of naturalistic metaphysics.
2. The argument from evil (logical/evidential).
3. The argument from the principle of material causality (PMC).
Anyway, if someone wants to dig deeper into arguments for atheism, I recommend checking Felipe Leon's compilation of over 200 arguments for atheism. You will find all the references and such.
4. 8:12 as well as internal contradictions. The problem of evil is one of them.
I grew up at the back of a Catholic Seminary where young priest were trained. What I have seen and experienced there made me an atheist at age 5! Rape and abuse of the nuns working there was the norm, the arrogance of that narcistic bunch of top Catholic Clergy was shocking. That was in Austria in the 1950's. Thankfully, I moved to the English speaking world as a young man. Best decision I ever made.
I would say that the argument from evil is more of an argument against gods that are supposed to be all good. It does nothing against a deist god or systems with evil an god or gods.
@@tomjackson7755 It is an argument against the classical concept of an all good, all powerful God (capital G God). That's mostly what theism and religion are about.
@@anteodedi8937 Isn't that exactly what I just said?
why would g-d stop creating
Richard’s ideas are nonsense but at least his voice is more annoying than nails on a chalkboard.
something that may help save your lost soul is not nonsense
Hey...He sounds like he does. Just as you sound as you do. Let's critique the arguments and not personal characteristics.
Say you don't know and you don't look stupid.
no evil no good no light no darkness
This is embarrassing.
hidden in plane sight depends on the person looking
Thats ridiculous .
yes, unconscious Bigbang producing consciousness and life is not only ridiculous but funny...
@@evaadam3635 See, this is a false dichotomy. Either your specific interpretation of God is true, or there is no god at all. There are thousands of other interpretations of who God is, all of which are capable of creating the universe and consciousness. Do you have sufficient reason to believe that your specific interpretation is the correct one? Have you even taken a serious look at any other interpretations?
@@evaadam3635Who exactly has made such a claim?
@@profcalculus474"Either your specific interpretation of God is true, or there is no God at all".
And by what logic does this conclusion come from? Sounds to me like you just made it up. There are thousands of different religions and obviously they can't all be right. In fact probably none of them are, at least entirely. So in what way does that completely eliminate all alternatives? What if you don't have a specific interpretation of God, but rather a generic one? Does that make you right then because you didn't commit to something specific? When you break down your argument it is illogical. God might exist, God might not exist, whether or not God exists doesn't hinge on what a particular person believes. It either is or it isn't, that is the one hard truth in all of it, there is no middle ground on the matter, yes you can be agnostic in your views but that doesn't change the reality of that the question of God is a hard yes or a hard no. Pick your poison, but what you pick doesn't impact what ultimately is the reality, a reality we don't have the answer to and probably will never have in this existence.
@@100percentSNAFU Um, yes. That is exactly my point. That is why i called it a false dichotomy. lmfao
Atrocious
I love professor swinburne's work but I disagree that God is not obvious. He's completely obvious. Anyone who has ever seen a sunrise, or a tree, or a bird knows that there is a God.
Substitute word God with science
@@dukeallen432Science isn’t a description of the universe but an epistemological method. Substitute God for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, civilization of unseen fairies, or the guy running the simulation.
Also, consider that we used to think Genesis was history before we discovered mechanisms for how the Earth formed and life emerged (barring abiogenesis, for now). We used to think that God had to be directly involved until we found a better explanation.
God is not obvious. Obvious things don't lead to massive disagreement. There cannot be square circles. That's obvious, while god doesn't fit the bill.
You are too biased and arrogant in your epistemic beliefs and attitudes.
Anyone who has ever seen an innocent sentient being in extreme pain and agony at least is inclined to suspend judgment regarding god's existence if not straightforwardly affirming its non-existence.
@@anteodedi8937The bit about allowing suffering was the very first question that was debunked. You can believe or not believe all you want but you can't manufacture reasons to make your position the "right" one. Of course religious people do this as well. But no theist, of any major religion will tell you there isn't supposed to be suffering. In fact there IS supposed to be suffering. Whether it's Christians and the concept of Lucifer, or Hindus and the concept of Kharma, any religious person will tell you life is supposed to be challenging to prove your worthiness to their god. Most religions actually revolve around the fact that life is tough therefore you must be repentant. I personally am a self proclaimed fence-sitter on the concept of religion, and am open to any argument for or against it, however the "allowing of suffering" argument as a proof negative falls flat.
@@100percentSNAFU I like Swinburne, but his responses to the problem of evil simply fall flat.
“God allows tsunamis earthquakes, diseases, so people can respond by being courageous.”
I find that as satisfactory as saying that I will allow a dangerous virus on my children or allow them to be tortured so they can respond by being courageous. That's a lame excuse, so nothing was really debunked here.
And I don't think you get the scope and the depth of the argument. It doesn't just point to ordinary pain and suffering, but also extreme pain and suffering, like sentient beings being eaten alive or being burned alive during a forest fire. It also points to the quantity of it. Everything part and parcel of hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary process. And that simply conflicts with the idea of an all powerful, all good god. On the contrary, all of that can be expected if there really isn't such a god.
Again Again & Again 😂😂😂
What a bunch of rubbish
1st
Atheism? to a Minion You're an Animal. all You Can do is SASH - La Primavera De La Monde.