From Swinburnes' most popular book 'Is There A God', 2010: "Argument and counter-argument, qualification and amplification, can go on forever. But religion is not exceptional in this respect. With respect to any subject whatever, the discussion can go on forever. New experiments can always be done to test Quantum Theory, new interpretations can be proposed for old experiments, forever. And the same goes for interpretations ofhistory or theories of politics. BUT LIFE IS SHORT AND WE HAVE TO ACT on the basis of what such evidence as we have had time to investigate shows on balance to be probably true. We have to vote in elections without having had time to consider the merits of the political programmes of even the main candidates with respect to one or two planks of their programmes. And we have to build bridges and send rockets into space before we can look at all the arguments for and against whether our construction is safe-let alone be absolutely certain that it is. And in religion too we have to act (while allowing that, later in life, we may look again at the arguments). The conclusion of this book was that, on significant balance of probability, there is a God. If you accept it, it follows that you have certain duties. God has given us life and all the good things it contains, including above all the opportunities to mould our characters and help others. Great gratitude to God is abundantly appropriate. We should express it in worship and in helping to forward his purposes-which involves, as a preliminary step, making some effort to find out what they are. But duties are of limited extent (as we saw in Chapter 1); a moderate amount of worship and obedience might satisfy them. We could leave it at that. Yet, if we have any sense and any idealism, we cannot leave it at that. God in his perfect goodness will want to make the best of us: make saints of us and use us to make saints of others (not, of course, for his sake, but for ours and for theirs), give us deep understanding of himself (the all-good source of all being), and help us to interact with him. All that involves an unlimited commitment. But God respects us; he will not force these things on us-we can choose whether to seek them or not. If we do seek them, there are obvious obstacles in this world to achieving them (some of which I discussed in Chapter 6). The obstacles are necessary, partly in order to ensure that our commitment is genuine. But God has every reason in due course to remove those obstacles-to allow us to become the good people we seek to be, to give us the vision of himself-forever."
bro he literally just said 'because things have an order, and gravity exists, god made it like that'. i mean, he used the argument from incredulity ffs. what part of this denotes reasoning power
@@nap_time_hey bro, why do you think he's wrong for arguing that way? I think it would be because the designer or fine-tuner does not have to be God per se, but it is open to many possibilities? What do you think, do let me know
@@----f i agree. i dont think its necessarily the God he's talking about, but I think there's something up there. However i hate the way he's arguing- he was talking about how the regularity of gravity shows a creator. How? It would be more likely there was a creator if they changed every day. Also, he then says not to postulate about multiverses without evidence- after arguing for God for 6 minutes without any evidence either.
The trouble with his argument is that the god hypothesis could be applied equally well to a chaotic universe. The answer "because god wanted it that way" can be used to explain nearly anything: if the universe were chaotic, the theist would say "These things are the workings of god and are not to be understood by man". It also seems strange that, having specially ordered things, he would violate or perturb this order with miracles. Theism does not predict order to the exclusion of disorder.
@@franc6196 Dice that don't have a 1/6 chance of each face coming up are MORE predictable than dice that have exactly a 1/6 chance of each face coming up. Both are chaotic systems, as they are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
Actually, no. If the universe were really a chaotic one (in the sense that Swinburne explained briefly at 1:38) we would probably not be here right now. There would be no theist making an argument saying “Oh, all this chaos is the working of god and are not to be understood by man”. The fact that precisely we *don’t* see a chaotic universe (we wouldn’t even be here to see it in the first place) but we actually see a very mysteriously ordered universe is evidence for theism. That’s the basic point (of course, more can be said). Also, miracles shouldn’t bother us with respect to this argument. After all, we don’t see, for example, people resurrecting all the time, do we?
If all particles behaved exactly the same under all circumstances the universe would have expanded from the big bang in a perfectly uniform manner. The universe has discernible features only because particle interactions are probabilistic and non-linear. What scientific evidence does any theologian have for the their sweeping statements about the motivation, aims and objectives of god?
Never ceases to amaze me how, even when a person of high intelligence presents a solid case for the existence of God, that you still find atheists in the comments section denying it, even though they themselves do not have nearly the same accolades as the person speaking.
These atheists are nothing more than truth denialists. They hate their state of utter wrongness and erroneous beliefs. Worst religion ever, atheism is.
So, since the Universe has logic and is both regular and predictable... that proves that there is an individual from a higher dimension who looks like a human, created a talking snake, forbid people to eat certain things and turned himself to a human so he could kill himself to forgive us from the sins that he decided we commited. What did I miss? How does this in anyway support the ridiculous claims of the bible?
So, rather than say "no we wouldn't, because our theists' reasoning is not so trivial" you respond "no we wouldn't, silly, because if that were true there would be no theists." The problem with talking about god's actions with a theist, is that they presume/assume that they are justified, or say that they are justified by definition. I think it shows a sloppiness to need to go back in and tweak rather than having it be perfect ab initio.
@@juandeleon1665 l believe nothing can come from nothing so God is nature, as did Spinoza and Einstein. I don't know what came before time, but l doubt that making something up is a good start to finding out.
@celestial teapot,saying god is nature doesn’t explain where everything came from it’s more like a cop out so you don’t have to explain where everything came from,you claim to be an atheist but I would respect you more if you where intellectually honest and call your self agnostic which means you don’t know if there is a god,but to call your self an atheist witch claims there is no god,of course I can’t proof there is a god but you can’t proof that there isn’t a god either,so we have to go by the evidence and to me and many scientists believe it or not there is plenty of evidence for god,and at the end of the road when we are on our death beds if I was wrong I lost nothing because a believed in Jesus Christ my lord and savior and if you where wrong well you might be in a pickle down in hell,god bless
@@juandeleon1665 l have no belief in God as commonly envisaged, l am prepared to change my mind in the light of new evidence; an agnostic can not decide. Science is underpinned by humility, not the need to be respected. You might like to read Spinoza's ethics, good luck.
There is plenty of evidence sometimes ppl don’t want to see or acknowledge it on purpose just the human cell is far more complex then the most advanced computer,hopefully you find Jesus before you die maybe you don’t need him in this life time but in the afterlife when we are both dead and gone if I’m wrong well I’m just dead but if your wrong hell is going to be hot, god bless
The problem with your rebuttal is that if the Universe were disorderly there would be no theists to make any postulations about the orderliness of the Universe or otherwise. Sentient life, or biological life itself for that matter, is only possible because the constants that he discusses are fixed. As to miracles, when God disrupts the natural order of things He does so for specific reasons. In the case of the NT miracles the miracles were intended to authenticate the message.
VirtualC :" God in the narrow sense but God in the major sense of all godly properties". "God" word is a partuclar property, so your "major sens" is just confusion between properties. God is not the first name of the Creator.
multiverse theory , is like lottery balls: the numbers rotated in a sphere that is spun by an engine created by man, in a room, build by some construction worker designed by certain engineer - all of them humans. then there is one person who presses the button to release one ball out of rotation. This system is designed by human beings. if universes were the balls then human beings are Gods. The designer of lottery machine is God and other workers in the lottery machine are the angles
What a poor argument. His mistake is to say that if the universe were thrown up by chance you wouldn't expect the uniformity he described. But if the universe is natural, it wouldn't be here by chance, It would be here according to it's properties and that is not down to chance. Whether the universe is natural or not, it wouldn't produce us if it was disordered.
Ok, why does he assume that the multiverse is governed by strict laws but begins his argument by questioning the universe's laws for being strict and unchanging? (this is a rhetorical question by the way. The answer is because his arguement holds no water)
Exactly how could natural selection take place in a universe where cause and effect are not consistent? It would be much more miraculous for us to find ourselves living in a universe without the laws of cause and effect needed to generate natural selection, so that argument fails.
Lol I came here right after my exam on it just to hear it one last time after I destroyed his argument😂 Even though I'm an atheist I will concede there is no argument better for God than Swinburne's appeal to what caused temporal order.
A lot of assumptions are made here. First that humans are important. Second that an orderly universe should follow to a god. Unlikeliness doesn't prove gods existence. Even if it is unlikely that the universe is as it is, it does not logically follow that therefor a god must exist. not only that, but that that god also cares about humans. Besides it just pushes the question. If the change the orderly universe exist is so low it needs a god, then the question goes towards god now. How can a god exist that creates such an orderly universe, that is even more unlikely. Also maybe the physical "laws" just cannot be any other way. It's the only way they work, or else a universe couldn't exist and it would still be just a singularity. So even with a multiverse theory, maybe only universes like ours can exist. And since we are here observing the universe we can conclude that this is at least one way for it to exist. Evidence for god, as to be evidence for god, and not for other things to then slap a god on.
Using bad grammar to criticize one of the most famous philosophers alive. Some RUclipsrs are really stupid. You missed his entire point! He was saying that why should all these particles obey Newton's laws? Why do they obey them regularly everyday? I think the answer is that probably it is because of the law giver, God, for laws of gravity describe how not WHY!
shuhan >Using bad grammar to criticize one of the most famous philosophers alive. Attacking my grammar proves not your or his point. Pointing out he is famous doesn't prove anything either besides that he might be famous. >Some RUclipsrs are really stupid. insulting me doesn't prove god as well. >You missed his entire point! Did I? >He was saying that why should all these particles obey Newton's law? Yes that is a legit question. >I think the answer is that probably it is because of the law giver, God, for laws of gravity describe how does everything happen not WHY! And that is not a legit answer, because you still have to demonstrate that this god exists which he did not, he simply asserted a god into the equation.
Quiestre No, he never said this was a deductive argument for God. He said it is one of the most powerful INDUCTIVE arguments for God. Big difference! And also he never inserted God into the equation. He simply implied that the best answer for the orderliness and regularity of the universe is God the creator. This obviously contrasted by other responses like "I don't know" or "Duh, it is nature"
shuhan >This obviously contrasted by other responses like "I don't know" or "Duh, it is nature" How is it actually better than " I don't know" or "nature"? I don't know is the only honest answer and "nature" is more realistic.
If the existence of this "orderly" universe is improbable because of the unlikeliness of something so ordered happening to come into existence from chance then the existence of an orderly god happening to exist without even the high odds of chance is more improbable.
shuhan The G-Ds which provide "order in the Material World" are the Physical Laws. Unlike the Laws which are man-made (created, evolving, mutable), they cannot be broken (violated) and they are NON-created, NON-mutable NON-evolving. Therefore the Physical Laws are the true G-Ds. Interestingly these G-Ds, which JUST ARE, keep silent and they do not feel a thing. The mutated Abrahamic G-D, who evolved from Polytheism (CREATED, by Human Brains) which exists in multiple species (I kindly remind you of the most infamous of these, called "Allah") has emotions which is laughable for a G-D. The concept of "a G-D requires worship" is blasphemy against true G-Ds (it degrades them to Human Beings)
@@Ho-mb2wb I am so sorry - I am a NOMINALIST, now. The asserrtion of Nominalism is, that any abstract, and laws are just some few of these, are imaginary, ie do NOT exist. All that DOES exist, on this occasion, it is things that your brain makes up laws and other abstracts, FROM/ABOUT, and it is the assertions (symbols, TEXTS) OF laws. Kind regards from GERMANY!
@@kleenex3000 how can you come to the conclusion that gravity doesn't exist? Is it just because you can't see it? Well, that's irrelevant because we can measure it. This applies to other natural laws too. Do you not agree?
Try linguistic, not philosophy without roots. ". To be a theist you don't have to believe in God" What means God ? A word is a characteristic, this is why your post have no sens.
Swinburne's approach, while admirable, is not the best way to argue for the existence of God. The "cumulative case" argument for God is not particularly interesting, at least philosophically. The more interesting way is to argue for a metaphysical system and then follow that system to its inevitable conclusions. This is why Aquinas' argumentation is far more solid.
***** I would strongly recommend Edward Feser's The Last Superstition or Aquinas. He does a far better job than I ever could. Just because our equations don't yet describe the beginning of the universe doesn't mean we won't develop a theory to eliminate the singularity (quantum gravity). However, that still doesn't answer why the universe exists for the equations to describe in the first place.
***** Your arguments are almost intellectually incoherent. The singularity explicitly means that our laws of physics break down. A theory of quantum gravity will eventually be discovered. Also, a singularity isn't a cause of anything, nor is it a necessary being. Singularities are convenient mathematical descriptors. Last time I checked, math doesn't cause things to come into existence.
@@themetsfan861 five proofs I don’t find any arguments but rationalist to be good graham oppy points out with existential inertia as a counter to the other 4.
God is a word. There is an intelligence that rules the universe. We as people need to follow true Humanetics. Drop ego, and self and be more human. know what is intrinsic knowledge and that universal intelligence from birth.
Love the first argument, "the orderliness of the universe". Hitch would have pulled this guy apart in seconds lol. This is akin to saying: "there is a universe, therefore god". I like the way this guy speaks, but man it's the same old guff over and over again wrapped in the pretty wrapping paper of his erudition. All style and no substance.... shame.
Richard Swinburne is marveling at how that which emcompasses him fits him perfectly and therefore must have been made (by the god he imagines no less) for him to reside within it. Probability doesn't explain it but the god he made up in his head does. And surely there couldn't be other universes elsewhere that may or may not also exist by pure chance. This must be the only one. Cuz reasons. This is an extravagant variant on what Douglas Adams' called "The Puddle Argument." Look it up if you are not familiar. This is a failed argument. Swinburne is a walking puddle, just as we all are. Please also see, or rather hear, Tim Minchin's "Not Perfect." BZZT! Sorry! Wrong answer, but thank you for playing Mr. Swinburne!
bro literally spent 5 minutes postulating about how 'god is real because gravity' and then said 'you shouldnt postulate about other universes without a good reason to do so' oh my god get this man a reality check
@@franc6196 Yes, my sentence is contingent. I am commenting on how ridiculous it is to think that because there are regularities to the universe that there would be a teleology... a point... to those regularities. Why would that need to be the case? It wouldn't.
@@franc6196 it seems to me at best you are saying that regularity is a precondition for teleology. To affirm teleology on the basis of regularity would thus be affirming the consequent. P --> Q does not imply Q --> P
If God created and animates the universe then you would not expect the consistency we find. If He were omnipotent then constant animation of all things would not be the slightest problem. There would be an infinite number of ways for Him to cause the attraction of two bodies regardless of their masses, etc. He would have no need to establish uniform laws of physics for physical things to behave. And Christian doctrine teaches that God believed we were indeed NOT good things, not a single one of us. Who is this preposterous scarecrow?
To answer your first part it is very difficult to know what God "would" or "would not" do as a free personal agent. That said certain features are indicative of personal agency even if we are unaware of the motives of such an agent. As for there being an infinite number of ways for God to do things, this claim betrays insufficient understanding of the fine-tuning. To answer your second point, yes and no. Christian doctrine teaches that to God we are good things pre-sin. Post-sin we are not, though He still desires our salvation so that we may be good again. To answer your last question, this "preposterous scarecrow" happens to be one of the finest living philosophers of religion. Recognized with respect by both his theistic and atheistic peers. What he says in a half-hour or so interview is obviously not the fullest extent of any arguments he might make. For a fuller treatment read his second edition of "The Existence of God" from Oxford University Press.
Why is evil aloud though guys?, Why is it okay to kill animals for food? Such beautiful creatures that God created why kill them? Why is evil aloud to happen? Why do we die and loose the ones we love... How do we know that when our body dies our brain and everything about us doesn't just die and we become nothing like we were before we were born?
What Swinburn states at 1:33 to 1:48 (that if the creation of the universe were the result of random chance, then the laws of physics would operate differently from day to day and place to place) is both incorrect and belies an almost inexcusable ignorance of the science of the matter. If this in any way a pivotal piece of evidence in his argument, it is rightly doomed to failure. His whole argument in general is just begging the question. If our universe is orderly, then god exists; the universe is orderly, therefore god exists - this just defines god in such a way that it necessarily exists. This should be utterly unconvincing to anyone who desires a rigorously verified, sound, reasonable argument.
his "argument" also tells us nothing about _which_ God this may be. Humans have created hundreds of different Gods throughout history. Swinburne never explains how he logically decided that the Christian God is the one true God. He is making it seem as though he has logical reasons to believe in Christianity, when he obviously has none.
Aye, aye. There are still those who deny the existence of God after hearing a lucid argument like this. Just shows you the depth of enmity in the human heart. No God! say the wicked. And why? because God hates the sin that man loves. The order of everything means everything was put in order and is still kept in order by the governing laws created immediately by God in the beginning. Glory to God in the highest but let the wicked be consumed out of the earth. Amen and amen.
Funny how everything in the universe is a number? even quantum fluctuations are numbers . If these numbers were incorrect we would probably never have existed . Someone has to behind this incredible design . Where did quantum fluctuations get the will to fluctuate lol
@@qamarhussain4176 Actually, nothing in the universe is a number, at a fundamental level. We use numbers to describe things. There are no numbers outside of minds.
@@ungodlyatheism2743 So what is there outside of minds ? Does this mean our minds are limited and so is our intellect ? can something exist outside our mind ? Have you heard of occoms razor ?
@@qamarhussain4176 What exists outside of minds and what allows minds to exist is physical stuff. It may ultimately be a unified field, but in the absence of that I suppose we are talking about elementary particles (some known and some unknown).
@@ungodlyatheism2743 We don't know what exists outside of minds just like we don't know what allows minds to exist . How do then know it's unified and physical ? Why does it even exist at all. Just like our universe . Why something rather then nothing .
I invite you to Islam and to read the Holy Quran. You will find all the answers you seek ..!! Don't be arrogant and judge before you read.. Just read it, it won't kill you..!!
I believe most of us have read it, and it's an incredibly appalling. There's many early Christian writers and Hebrew/Greek/Roman Historians that are in direct contradiction with Muhammad's claims. So the notion that the Quran is the "word of God" is extraordinarily unlikely. In the conflict of Muhammad vs. the whole scholarly world; it's way more than likely that Muhammad was a false prophet.
From Swinburnes' most popular book 'Is There A God', 2010:
"Argument and counter-argument, qualification and amplification, can go on forever. But religion is not exceptional in this respect. With respect to any subject whatever, the discussion can go on forever. New experiments can always be done to test Quantum Theory, new interpretations can be proposed for old experiments, forever. And the same goes for interpretations ofhistory or theories of politics. BUT LIFE IS SHORT AND WE HAVE TO ACT on the basis of what such evidence as we have had time to investigate shows on balance to be probably true. We have to vote in elections without having had time to consider the merits of the political programmes of even the main candidates with respect to one or two planks of their programmes. And we have to build bridges and send rockets into space before we can look at all the arguments for and against whether our construction is safe-let alone be absolutely certain that it is. And in religion too we have to act (while allowing that, later in life, we may look again at the arguments). The conclusion of this book was that, on significant balance of probability, there is a God. If you accept it, it follows that you have certain duties. God has given us life and all the good things it contains, including above all the opportunities to mould our characters and help others. Great gratitude to God is abundantly appropriate. We should express it in worship and in helping to forward his purposes-which involves, as a preliminary step, making some effort to find out what they are. But duties are of limited extent (as we saw in Chapter 1); a moderate amount of worship and obedience might satisfy them. We could leave it at that. Yet, if we have any sense and any idealism, we cannot leave it at that. God in his perfect goodness will want to make the best of us: make saints of us and use us to make saints of others (not, of course, for his sake, but for ours and for theirs), give us deep understanding of himself (the all-good source of all being), and help us to interact with him. All that involves an unlimited commitment. But God respects us; he will not force these things on us-we can choose whether to seek them or not. If we do seek them, there are obvious obstacles in this world to achieving them (some of which I discussed in Chapter 6). The obstacles are necessary, partly in order to ensure that our commitment is genuine. But God has every reason in due course to remove those obstacles-to allow us to become the good people we seek to be, to give us the vision of himself-forever."
Amen!
too good.... toooooo good. even his feeble voice could not hide the greatness of his reasoning power.
bro he literally just said 'because things have an order, and gravity exists, god made it like that'. i mean, he used the argument from incredulity ffs. what part of this denotes reasoning power
@@nap_time_hey bro, why do you think he's wrong for arguing that way? I think it would be because the designer or fine-tuner does not have to be God per se, but it is open to many possibilities? What do you think, do let me know
@@----f i agree. i dont think its necessarily the God he's talking about, but I think there's something up there. However i hate the way he's arguing- he was talking about how the regularity of gravity shows a creator. How? It would be more likely there was a creator if they changed every day. Also, he then says not to postulate about multiverses without evidence- after arguing for God for 6 minutes without any evidence either.
The trouble with his argument is that the god hypothesis could be applied equally well to a chaotic universe. The answer "because god wanted it that way" can be used to explain nearly anything: if the universe were chaotic, the theist would say "These things are the workings of god and are not to be understood by man". It also seems strange that, having specially ordered things, he would violate or perturb this order with miracles. Theism does not predict order to the exclusion of disorder.
@@franc6196 ...a universe that is in great disorder, one that is less predictable, less organized, less comprehensible and structured, etc.
@@franc6196
Chaotic is not synonymous with improbable. Look around you: how chaotic does the world seem?
@@franc6196
Chaotic means less predictable, and also, more colloquially, in a state of great disorder. I mean it in both senses.
@@franc6196
Dice that don't have a 1/6 chance of each face coming up are MORE predictable than dice that have exactly a 1/6 chance of each face coming up. Both are chaotic systems, as they are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
Actually, no. If the universe were really a chaotic one (in the sense that Swinburne explained briefly at 1:38) we would probably not be here right now. There would be no theist making an argument saying “Oh, all this chaos is the working of god and are not to be understood by man”. The fact that precisely we *don’t* see a chaotic universe (we wouldn’t even be here to see it in the first place) but we actually see a very mysteriously ordered universe is evidence for theism. That’s the basic point (of course, more can be said).
Also, miracles shouldn’t bother us with respect to this argument. After all, we don’t see, for example, people resurrecting all the time, do we?
If all particles behaved exactly the same under all circumstances the universe would have expanded from the big bang in a perfectly uniform manner. The universe has discernible features only because particle interactions are probabilistic and non-linear.
What scientific evidence does any theologian have for the their sweeping statements about the motivation, aims and objectives of god?
Brilliant analysis
Never ceases to amaze me how, even when a person of high intelligence presents a solid case for the existence of God, that you still find atheists in the comments section denying it, even though they themselves do not have nearly the same accolades as the person speaking.
+Reyes E. Moreno
Never ceases to amaze me how (presumably intelligent) theists cannot see how incredibly stupid this person's arguments are.
Reyes E. Moreno even intelligent people believe stupid things. Read Dr Michael Shermer explanation of why humans possess this trait.
These atheists are nothing more than truth denialists. They hate their state of utter wrongness and erroneous beliefs. Worst religion ever, atheism is.
So, since the Universe has logic and is both regular and predictable... that proves that there is an individual from a higher dimension who looks like a human, created a talking snake, forbid people to eat certain things and turned himself to a human so he could kill himself to forgive us from the sins that he decided we commited.
What did I miss? How does this in anyway support the ridiculous claims of the bible?
R.E.M.: projection-irony much?
So, rather than say "no we wouldn't, because our theists' reasoning is not so trivial" you respond "no we wouldn't, silly, because if that were true there would be no theists." The problem with talking about god's actions with a theist, is that they presume/assume that they are justified, or say that they are justified by definition. I think it shows a sloppiness to need to go back in and tweak rather than having it be perfect ab initio.
You can't prove god with arguements you need Evidence! I ask you how would you prove that your friend is real?
what?
We don't know why things are the way they are so it must have needed God to make it this way, oh dear. Thank you, God, for making me an atheist.
So you believe that in the beginning there was nothing then a Big Bang explosion made everything okay sure
@@juandeleon1665 l believe nothing can come from nothing so God is nature, as did Spinoza and Einstein. I don't know what came before time, but l doubt that making something up is a good start to finding out.
@celestial teapot,saying god is nature doesn’t explain where everything came from it’s more like a cop out so you don’t have to explain where everything came from,you claim to be an atheist but I would respect you more if you where intellectually honest and call your self agnostic which means you don’t know if there is a god,but to call your self an atheist witch claims there is no god,of course I can’t proof there is a god but you can’t proof that there isn’t a god either,so we have to go by the evidence and to me and many scientists believe it or not there is plenty of evidence for god,and at the end of the road when we are on our death beds if I was wrong I lost nothing because a believed in Jesus Christ my lord and savior and if you where wrong well you might be in a pickle down in hell,god bless
@@juandeleon1665 l have no belief in God as commonly envisaged, l am prepared to change my mind in the light of new evidence; an agnostic can not decide. Science is underpinned by humility, not the need to be respected. You might like to read Spinoza's ethics, good luck.
There is plenty of evidence sometimes ppl don’t want to see or acknowledge it on purpose just the human cell is far more complex then the most advanced computer,hopefully you find Jesus before you die maybe you don’t need him in this life time but in the afterlife when we are both dead and gone if I’m wrong well I’m just dead but if your wrong hell is going to be hot, god bless
The problem with your rebuttal is that if the Universe were disorderly there would be no theists to make any postulations about the orderliness of the Universe or otherwise. Sentient life, or biological life itself for that matter, is only possible because the constants that he discusses are fixed. As to miracles, when God disrupts the natural order of things He does so for specific reasons. In the case of the NT miracles the miracles were intended to authenticate the message.
VirtualC :" God in the narrow sense but God in the major sense of all godly properties".
"God" word is a partuclar property, so your "major sens" is just confusion between properties. God is not the first name of the Creator.
Your Allah don't exist
"What's your favorite argument for god?"
"The argument from incredulity [*straight face*]" 😄
multiverse theory , is like lottery balls: the numbers rotated in a sphere that is spun by an engine created by man, in a room, build by some construction worker designed by certain engineer - all of them humans. then there is one person who presses the button to release one ball out of rotation. This system is designed by human beings. if universes were the balls then human beings are Gods. The designer of lottery machine is God and other workers in the lottery machine are the angles
What a poor argument. His mistake is to say that if the universe were thrown up by chance you wouldn't expect the uniformity he described. But if the universe is natural, it wouldn't be here by chance, It would be here according to it's properties and that is not down to chance. Whether the universe is natural or not, it wouldn't produce us if it was disordered.
Ok, why does he assume that the multiverse is governed by strict laws but begins his argument by questioning the universe's laws for being strict and unchanging? (this is a rhetorical question by the way. The answer is because his arguement holds no water)
You...didn't seem to grasp what he was arguing two years ago. Perhaps you might wish to look at it again?
i can understand order, cause and effect. however i have trouble with so much human and animal cruelty and suffering!!!!
It is deviation from order
If all atoms began to break order atoms will be suffering from other atoms
So is the case with human
Exactly how could natural selection take place in a universe where cause and effect are not consistent? It would be much more miraculous for us to find ourselves living in a universe without the laws of cause and effect needed to generate natural selection, so that argument fails.
Akeel Bilgrami Exactly what is a "robust intentional state"?
Which 'causes' and 'effects' are inconsistent, and inconsistent with what?
Arachnoscribe I never said that.
Lol I came here right after my exam on it just to hear it one last time after I destroyed his argument😂
Even though I'm an atheist I will concede there is no argument better for God than Swinburne's appeal to what caused temporal order.
'Destroyed his argument'. Lol GTFOH.
@@No_BS_policy You didn't destroy anyone's argument.
lol
A lot of assumptions are made here.
First that humans are important.
Second that an orderly universe should follow to a god.
Unlikeliness doesn't prove gods existence. Even if it is unlikely that the universe is as it is, it does not logically follow that therefor a god must exist.
not only that, but that that god also cares about humans.
Besides it just pushes the question. If the change the orderly universe exist is so low it needs a god, then the question goes towards god now. How can a god exist that creates such an orderly universe, that is even more unlikely.
Also maybe the physical "laws" just cannot be any other way. It's the only way they work, or else a universe couldn't exist and it would still be just a singularity.
So even with a multiverse theory, maybe only universes like ours can exist. And since we are here observing the universe we can conclude that this is at least one way for it to exist.
Evidence for god, as to be evidence for god, and not for other things to then slap a god on.
Using bad grammar to criticize one of the most famous philosophers alive. Some RUclipsrs are really stupid. You missed his entire point! He was saying that why should all these particles obey Newton's laws? Why do they obey them regularly everyday? I think the answer is that probably it is because of the law giver, God, for laws of gravity describe how not WHY!
shuhan
>Using bad grammar to criticize one of the most famous philosophers alive.
Attacking my grammar proves not your or his point.
Pointing out he is famous doesn't prove anything either besides that he might be famous.
>Some RUclipsrs are really stupid.
insulting me doesn't prove god as well.
>You missed his entire point!
Did I?
>He was saying that why should all these particles obey Newton's law?
Yes that is a legit question.
>I think the answer is that probably it is because of the law giver, God, for laws of gravity describe how does everything happen not WHY!
And that is not a legit answer, because you still have to demonstrate that this god exists which he did not, he simply asserted a god into the equation.
Quiestre No, he never said this was a deductive argument for God. He said it is one of the most powerful INDUCTIVE arguments for God. Big difference! And also he never inserted God into the equation. He simply implied that the best answer for the orderliness and regularity of the universe is God the creator. This obviously contrasted by other responses like "I don't know" or "Duh, it is nature"
shuhan
>This obviously contrasted by other responses like "I don't know" or "Duh, it is nature"
How is it actually better than " I don't know" or "nature"?
I don't know is the only honest answer and "nature" is more realistic.
Real is subjective to you. God is real for believers and logical just as your nature. Don't forget that most of the world's population believes in God
If the existence of this "orderly" universe is improbable because of the unlikeliness of something so ordered happening to come into existence from chance then the existence of an orderly god happening to exist without even the high odds of chance is more improbable.
Orderly God! This always happens when New Atheists, who are used to the same old ungodly sermons, enter into the intellectual arena. Utter stupidity!
shuhan The G-Ds which provide "order in the Material World" are the Physical Laws. Unlike the Laws which are man-made (created, evolving, mutable), they cannot be broken (violated) and they are NON-created, NON-mutable NON-evolving. Therefore the Physical Laws are the true G-Ds. Interestingly these G-Ds, which JUST ARE, keep silent and they do not feel a thing. The mutated Abrahamic G-D, who evolved from Polytheism (CREATED, by Human Brains) which exists in multiple species (I kindly remind you of the most infamous of these, called "Allah") has emotions which is laughable for a G-D. The concept of "a G-D requires worship" is blasphemy against true G-Ds (it degrades them to Human Beings)
@@kleenex3000 why are there these laws to begin with?
@@Ho-mb2wb I am so sorry - I am a NOMINALIST, now. The asserrtion of Nominalism is, that any abstract, and laws are just some few of these, are imaginary, ie do NOT exist. All that DOES exist, on this occasion, it is things that your brain makes up laws and other abstracts, FROM/ABOUT, and it is the assertions (symbols, TEXTS) OF laws. Kind regards from GERMANY!
@@kleenex3000 how can you come to the conclusion that gravity doesn't exist? Is it just because you can't see it? Well, that's irrelevant because we can measure it. This applies to other natural laws too. Do you not agree?
Try linguistic, not philosophy without roots.
". To be a theist you don't have to believe in God"
What means God ?
A word is a characteristic, this is why your post have no sens.
Failed.
Try again. Ask for help too.
God is mathematics.
Swinburne's approach, while admirable, is not the best way to argue for the existence of God. The "cumulative case" argument for God is not particularly interesting, at least philosophically. The more interesting way is to argue for a metaphysical system and then follow that system to its inevitable conclusions. This is why Aquinas' argumentation is far more solid.
***** I would strongly recommend Edward Feser's The Last Superstition or Aquinas. He does a far better job than I ever could. Just because our equations don't yet describe the beginning of the universe doesn't mean we won't develop a theory to eliminate the singularity (quantum gravity). However, that still doesn't answer why the universe exists for the equations to describe in the first place.
***** Your arguments are almost intellectually incoherent. The singularity explicitly means that our laws of physics break down. A theory of quantum gravity will eventually be discovered. Also, a singularity isn't a cause of anything, nor is it a necessary being. Singularities are convenient mathematical descriptors. Last time I checked, math doesn't cause things to come into existence.
@@themetsfan861 five proofs I don’t find any arguments but rationalist to be good graham oppy points out with existential inertia as a counter to the other 4.
God is a word. There is an intelligence that rules the universe. We as people need to follow true Humanetics. Drop ego, and self and be more human. know what is intrinsic knowledge and that universal intelligence from birth.
The mind is like the universe unlimited and ever expanding.
Love the first argument, "the orderliness of the universe". Hitch would have pulled this guy apart in seconds lol. This is akin to saying: "there is a universe, therefore god". I like the way this guy speaks, but man it's the same old guff over and over again wrapped in the pretty wrapping paper of his erudition. All style and no substance.... shame.
Justin D exactly! Hitch was a moron
Lmao! You haven't understood anything of his argument. "There is universe therefore god" lol this is what you call an strawman argument.
"there is a universe, therefore God" is a valid argument too.
Richard Swinburne is marveling at how that which emcompasses him fits him perfectly and therefore must have been made (by the god he imagines no less) for him to reside within it. Probability doesn't explain it but the god he made up in his head does. And surely there couldn't be other universes elsewhere that may or may not also exist by pure chance. This must be the only one. Cuz reasons.
This is an extravagant variant on what Douglas Adams' called "The Puddle Argument." Look it up if you are not familiar. This is a failed argument. Swinburne is a walking puddle, just as we all are. Please also see, or rather hear, Tim Minchin's "Not Perfect."
BZZT! Sorry! Wrong answer, but thank you for playing Mr. Swinburne!
bro literally spent 5 minutes postulating about how 'god is real because gravity' and then said 'you shouldnt postulate about other universes without a good reason to do so' oh my god get this man a reality check
Ascribing a teleology to regularities in the universe is wholly unnecessary. Jesus Christ...
@@franc6196 and?
@@franc6196
Yes, my sentence is contingent. I am commenting on how ridiculous it is to think that because there are regularities to the universe that there would be a teleology... a point... to those regularities. Why would that need to be the case? It wouldn't.
@@franc6196 it seems to me at best you are saying that regularity is a precondition for teleology. To affirm teleology on the basis of regularity would thus be affirming the consequent. P --> Q does not imply Q --> P
Or, as I put it, you can't necessarily derive teleology from ontology.
@@julianjanssen5499 1:39 He explains it
If God created and animates the universe then you would not expect the consistency we find. If He were omnipotent then constant animation of all things would not be the slightest problem. There would be an infinite number of ways for Him to cause the attraction of two bodies regardless of their masses, etc. He would have no need to establish uniform laws of physics for physical things to behave.
And Christian doctrine teaches that God believed we were indeed NOT good things, not a single one of us.
Who is this preposterous scarecrow?
To answer your first part it is very difficult to know what God "would" or "would not" do as a free personal agent. That said certain features are indicative of personal agency even if we are unaware of the motives of such an agent. As for there being an infinite number of ways for God to do things, this claim betrays insufficient understanding of the fine-tuning.
To answer your second point, yes and no. Christian doctrine teaches that to God we are good things pre-sin. Post-sin we are not, though He still desires our salvation so that we may be good again.
To answer your last question, this "preposterous scarecrow" happens to be one of the finest living philosophers of religion. Recognized with respect by both his theistic and atheistic peers. What he says in a half-hour or so interview is obviously not the fullest extent of any arguments he might make. For a fuller treatment read his second edition of "The Existence of God" from Oxford University Press.
BC Saying someone is a philosopher of religion is like saying they are a philosopher of Mickey Mouse.
cruelsuit1 And you base that on what? (Also, what do you have against Mickey?)
dazzerstar so.
"God" is a word. Try to find a single word which don't express a characteristic.
Why is evil aloud though guys?, Why is it okay to kill animals for food? Such beautiful creatures that God created why kill them? Why is evil aloud to happen? Why do we die and loose the ones we love...
How do we know that when our body dies our brain and everything about us doesn't just die and we become nothing like we were before we were born?
What Swinburn states at 1:33 to 1:48 (that if the creation of the universe were the result of random chance, then the laws of physics would operate differently from day to day and place to place) is both incorrect and belies an almost inexcusable ignorance of the science of the matter. If this in any way a pivotal piece of evidence in his argument, it is rightly doomed to failure.
His whole argument in general is just begging the question. If our universe is orderly, then god exists; the universe is orderly, therefore god exists - this just defines god in such a way that it necessarily exists. This should be utterly unconvincing to anyone who desires a rigorously verified, sound, reasonable argument.
his "argument" also tells us nothing about _which_ God this may be. Humans have created hundreds of different Gods throughout history. Swinburne never explains how he logically decided that the Christian God is the one true God. He is making it seem as though he has logical reasons to believe in Christianity, when he obviously has none.
@@xxMrBaldyxx who said anything about a Christian God?
@@TOITN the start of the video... did you... watch it??
Aye, aye. There are still those who deny the existence of God after hearing a lucid argument like this. Just shows you the depth of enmity in the human heart. No God! say the wicked. And why? because God hates the sin that man loves. The order of everything means everything was put in order and is still kept in order by the governing laws created immediately by God in the beginning. Glory to God in the highest but let the wicked be consumed out of the earth. Amen and amen.
People question God because they don't see him, not because of sin.
Sorry to say bull-sheet !! "To be a theist you don't have to believe in God" whats the meaning of this ? is it make any sens??
Are those the lips that God gave him?
Thinks the quantum fluctuations explanation for the universe is quite unlikely but thinks god poofing the universe into existence is quite likely. 😂
Funny how everything in the universe is a number? even quantum fluctuations are numbers . If these numbers were incorrect we would probably never have existed . Someone has to behind this incredible design . Where did quantum fluctuations get the will to fluctuate lol
@@qamarhussain4176 Actually, nothing in the universe is a number, at a fundamental level. We use numbers to describe things. There are no numbers outside of minds.
@@ungodlyatheism2743 So what is there outside of minds ? Does this mean our minds are limited and so is our intellect ? can something exist outside our mind ?
Have you heard of occoms razor ?
@@qamarhussain4176 What exists outside of minds and what allows minds to exist is physical stuff. It may ultimately be a unified field, but in the absence of that I suppose we are talking about elementary particles (some known and some unknown).
@@ungodlyatheism2743 We don't know what exists outside of minds just like we don't know what allows minds to exist . How do then know it's unified and physical ? Why does it even exist at all. Just like our universe . Why something rather then nothing .
I invite you to Islam and to read the Holy Quran. You will find all the answers you seek ..!! Don't be arrogant and judge before you read.. Just read it, it won't kill you..!!
I believe most of us have read it, and it's an incredibly appalling. There's many early Christian writers and Hebrew/Greek/Roman Historians that are in direct contradiction with Muhammad's claims. So the notion that the Quran is the "word of God" is extraordinarily unlikely. In the conflict of Muhammad vs. the whole scholarly world; it's way more than likely that Muhammad was a false prophet.