Does God Exist? | Full Head To Head | Oxford Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 січ 2022
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
This head-to-head debate will reflect on an age-old question which has been considered by philosophers and theologians for millennia: does God exist? Our two speakers (Professor Richard Swinburne & Professor Peter Millican) will discuss the philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, from moral and logical arguments to those posed by observed phenomena of the universe
--------------------------------------
1. Professor Richard Swinburne
Professor Swinburne is an Emeritus Professor
of Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford. He is an influential proponent of philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and authored The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason.
2. Professor Peter Millican
Professor Millican is the Gilbert Ryle Fellow and Professor of Philosophy at Hertford College. He questions the existence of God, and is known for his works on David Hume, the philosophy of religion, and moral philosophy
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
I still consistently feel amazed that this content is available online for free. I'm not sure there is anything of higher class than a philosophy of religion debate at Oxford University. Until the last ten years this was reserved for society's most elite. I feel like a lost farmhand who has accidently stumbled through the wrong doors and found himself amongst the intellectuals.
The internet is quite something.
The internet is quite something.
@@nothinghere1996 i may be old but not a stiff yet,! but when i am departed, i am sure i will be amongst the many folliwers of the faith that IFollow.
The beautiful bounteous blessings of UA-cam. I feel very much like you, Steve, deeply humbled.
If you can still get a stiff once awhile then you are not old enough.
Bro wore a durag to an oxford debate 😭
He's keeping it...hood
HAHAHA REPPIN FOR THE STREETS...THAT CHRIST CREATED THAT IS! HAHA
2:25 Richard Swinburne For the proposition (start of the debate)
24:35 Peter Millican Against the proposition
41:12 Richard Swinburne Response
52:11 Peter Millican Response
59:32 Richard Swinburne concluding statement
1:04:45 Peter Millican concluding statement
Those who lay down their lives to save a country do it at will. But the babies who die in war or famine? Is it their wish to die, too? If criminals have the right to do evil things because God gave them free will, then why did God not protect or save the thousands of children who died from gas chambers, war bombs, famines, rape, murder and all the evils of this world? For sure those children had free will too. For sure their will was to be shielded from evil and survive. Where is God's goodness, mercy, justice and equality for all? Just basing on this observation, i think the claim that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-present is obviously flawed.
@@jpro1810 Hi. Not sure why you're responding to my comment. I agree though that criminals limiting their victim's free will by killing them is worse than God limiting the criminal's free will by not allowing them to kill. That said, this is a more subtle question, and I'm sure Theologians have come up with a response to what we just now agreed. It's very interesting to explore these ideas, feel free to respond if you've got some other thoughts.
👑
I love we still have a platform for real debate, bit it's our last area of it, mostly we have lost any ability to discuss, if we disagree then we seemingly have to hate eachother and take sides, debate is the most important part of progress
Thank you gentlemen, a stimulating debate.
Professor Swinburne is 87 years old and still doing this. You have to have an unbelievable mind to do this.
No no no nono he's repetitive rehash the same cliche moral principles sounds out of tune out of date he didn't respond aptly to his counterpart.
@@suatustel746 Ok. Let us know how you do when you're 87 and debating someone more than 20 years younger...
@@benson0509 what's the question?
@@benson0509 no offense but...do you actually know how difficult it is to argue things at 87 or are you just making it up? Noam Chomsky is 93 he's still perfectly lucid. I think for these people who engage in philosophy or read literature every day, its probably not that hard to keep up to date with things or debate their younger peers. They may get physically tired more easily, but don't just assume that once you hit a certain age you become mentally incompetent. Its both insulting to the people who reach that age, as it is baseless. No doubt many things get harder as you grow older, but I believe that thinking is really only affected if you develop a specific mental illness, sort of like the early stages of dementia Joe Biden seems to be suffering from. Otherwise, so long as you are mentally active, I think you can still make valid contributions in your field.
@@radscorpion8 No offense taken. My point is that people like professor Swinburne are in rarefied air. Same for Noam. What I said is a complement, not baseless or offensive. It's just a fact that as you age you lose skills you had at a younger age. I certainly agree, that people at that age can make valid contributions to their respective fields, but it becomes more difficult with age, as you noted. Professor Swinburne is 87. The median age of death for a male in the UK is approximately 82. Professor Swinburne is doing something that statistically speaking most people at his age don't.
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen.
God bless.
Awesome! I admire Richard Swinburne and Peter Millican is such a gentle and clever opponent.
OK, i will post this as my comment. Someone below opened his comments with the following words,
"I see a confused and old man". I responded,
"I see a confused commenter making confused (i.e., category error) comments that exposes more the commenter's atheistic bias than anything else.
When i read this comment, my initial thought was, 'Man, Dr. Swinburne must have done poorly here.' But then i listened carefully to the ENTIRE debate and, surprise suprise! Swinburne presented a logically coherent and well-constructed argument for the hypothesis that the God of classical monotheism best explains existence compared to an atheistic hypothesis (and took head on point by point Dr. Millican's critique). In the end all Dr. Millican can argue was the 'evil God' hypothesis as an equally valid argument for the 'good God' argument based on the data. But that's not necessarily an atheistic argument."
You can disagree with Dr. Swinburne, sure. No argument is unarguable. You can punch holes in his argument (as Dr. Millican did), sure. But it's neither rational nor sane to characterize his presentation as confused. C'mon!
Having listened to Dr. Swinburne before, I shouldn't have been surprised that he did very well (mind you, at the age of 87?!).
Theists confuse their search for an answer to the universe with the power of story, mainly because the power of simplifying sense making in order to confront the deepest ideals of the human condition and Being is deep enough to be confused with the creator of that itself. Atheists don't seem to look beyond the claims themselves, which usually progresses towards an argument from ignorance, such as the fallacy theists commit too when assuming "God" is materialistic as done so in this debate by Richard.
I believe the debate question can only end in fallacy, and that the question itself lacks purpose and meaning because it is not practical, pragmatic.
@cauliflowercheese I don't understand your question sorry, my problem with the question is that the concept of God is being boxed into a purely materialistic view which I believe is disconnected from where we look to find wisdom and answers about our Being. When we question the cause behind the existence of our universe, it's a scientific question, however theism interjects by suggesting that what they hold to be their religious framework also encompasses that very scientific question, I disagree. The problem with atheism is they don't care about religion enough to abstract any wisdom from it.
@@Nivexity the very principle of theology is that it’s a belief. A belief is not a fact. It’s actually opposed to facts because when you can’t know for sure, you believe. Scientific experiments have never been trying to believe anything, they only deduce facts by observation. Theists do the opposite; they use beliefs that were instructed to them and try to nitpick observations that would prove their prior belief.
@@Stellar-Cowboy "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1
Are you not aware of the historical proof of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ? 🤔 Obviously not. . .
'There are 'proofs' to faith, Sherlock?'
'Elementary, my dear Watson.'
@@user-re2ey4ti4v are you seriously using the bible to prove the existence of god?? That is like the funniest thing ever.
If not, tell me what unbiased, reliable historical source talks of jezuz’ resurrection (you won’t find any lol)
Who else wants a copy of the handout?
me
Me too!
happy to see that a lot of people especially youth still interested to hear valuable debate , i see most of people only interested in nonsense social media materials , professor Richard is one of the best philosopher in the last 40 years
I agree that he is one of the best philosopher in the last 40 years, but that is a serious indictment of philosophy as his arguments are seriously flawed.
@@frogandspanner lol name a great philosopher of all time whos arguments arent thought by some to be seriously flawed? Thats not an indictment of philosophy, thats just philosophy.
I hate the comments under such debates.
Swinburne sounds so intelligent.
@Jon However inelligent he might be, his case for God's existence is philosophically worthless. It employs assumptions and inferences that have all been shown to be groundless over and over again. He just can't let go of his need to believe.
@Jon That's right. Just as your sarcastic and vacuous response can best be explained by your complete lack of support for his argument.
Swinburne is a titan. Great debate.
42:15. "A purpose that's nobody's purpose, that don't make sense to me." That is metaphor, that is teleology used as a short cut explanation of a dysteleological process.
Wow great line up!
"Scientist DO prefer the simplest explaination." No they don't. They prefer the correct explanation, no matter how complex it may be! If they prefered the simplest explanation, they would just say, like you are, that god that is capable of doing all of this ....did it. (Psssst- that's not what scientists do)
@Jon So you don't think that scientist, when they submit a "theory" (which is nothing more than the BEST explaination given the available data, understanding that the "theory" could very well change if new data is discovered also understanding that when their "theory" is put forward in scientific journals for "peer review" that all the premises, data, mechanisms for scientific discovery, as well as their conclusions are going to be scrutinized by many, many other scientist who are experts in the particular field of study ...just HOPING that they can find a flaw in the ...(all the things listed above) ..in other words ..prove the scientist wrong [that's what "science" is ...putting forth a theory to see if it can be proven wrong ...that's how it works]) ....yes ...any scientist certainly believes that he has put forward a "correct" explaination and "simplicity" doesn't factor into the explaination ...merely that it is "correct". As far as my knowing what the video was about ...sure I do ...it was a debate on the existance of god ...and for the life of me ..I did not here one ioda of anything resembling credible evidence coming from the affirmative side. All I heard was "presuposition" and "circular arguements" ...along with a bunch of gobely gook that was a struggle to even find pertinent to the question.
Swinburne started off with a (imo very vague and weak) argument for what seemed like deism, and then he rapidly tacked on the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and omni benevolence. Even if he had proved the existence of a deistic god, the extension of all these properties and also to be personal is arguably a far bigger challenge
God does exist...
You need no debate...
@@mosesmokwena6182 yeah he's narcisstic, vain glorious capricious self absorbed and egotistical..
Well said I totally agree. It seems Jordan Peterson took many notes on Richards type of vague speak. It's odd that when you understand the structure of his sentences, and the overall message they present you reject it like a bad smell. Yet when you don't catch the nuances and vague usages of vague terms, it sounds like a message from god. Brawndo has electrolytes.
@@suatustel746 Hitchens? Is that you?
35:06 there is actually a few ways mountains form: plates sliding over one another for example
God debates are now more entertainment than any new argument.
Excellent Analysis. More for shock value
And thus the first religionist was born. "Hmmm, this could be useful."
I love seeing both sides of the argument because no matter how much information they can bring up, there’s always a rebuttal. There is no singular statement that can be made by one side which will shut down the other completely.
Unfalsifiable claims breed "good" religion.
"God" and "exists" - two undefinable concepts and a real discussion
If god is not definable then how can anyone believe in that proposition
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 bro define matter mass, energy, you actually can´t, and still believe in those
@@thecriticon7819 well really cannot defining what mass and energy are?
You can open a dictionnary for that or even a science textbook for a more accurat explanation.
Anyway i'll try it: matter mass can be the weight like when shopping some amount(kg) of potatoes, it's representing the quantity of matter. Or in newtonian physic (i think this the one you required) the sum of each of the part of a body(any physical object) reprensenting his resistance to movements in a isolated system. Those two values are equivalent and can be used for each others in a system(with same gravity) and this is why they use the same unit(kilogram).
Energy: there is different definiton of energy as are differents energies. Those share the definition of being a size about the capacity of a corps or system to produce a mechanic work.
I leaved explain and defining what a molar mass is even if it's about "matter mass" but the very precise definition is very easy to do and to understand.
Nonetheless mass and energies don't require believe but learning about and had been described by sciences and scientists who had work on those fields and they can also be measured and even used in some calculations to predective behaviours and models who seem to work fine as most of engeenering is based on those knowledge and models.
How about you start to define god or measure some god entity action?
I guess you can't come with a coherent one because the ideas of gods is speculative and not rooted in any of the reality we can grasp, that impact us or interact with any of ours level of consciouness, so that make no difference if such a thing as any particuliar god exist or not exist in the so called real life.
Anyway prove me wrong and i will learn something but i really doubt it'll be as it has never been done before and so many had tried and failed.
First of all, i´m not new to physics, so i know how physics definitions work, mass is not weight since weight is a force, i know mass is defined in physics as resistence to movement, and energy as capacity to change, those are only part of the definition of those things, since we never now what the essence of matter or energy are, those physics "definitions" are only what in mathematics is called a characterization, which means enough information to be able to know that something is, in this case, energy or mass, so if you accept characterizations as a definition, we can define god in many ways, maybe an omnipotent personal being, maybe the first uncaused cause, so we can not accept resistence to movement as a definition of mass if we dont accept uncaused cause as a definition of god, the same way as we belive that resistence to movement it´s a real thing that exists and we call it mass, since there is no way we can explain what we see without assuming it does, we need to accept the fact that the uncaused caused exists since we have no other way to explain any other causal chain that we see, therefore if that definition of matter is enough to say matter exist, my definition of god would be enough to say he exists
@@thecriticon7819 "so i know how physics definitions work" so why ask for one previously saying they cant be definition of that? "well really cannot defining what mass and energy are?"
I just go for the most easily dictionary for a definition. weight is not mass but i remember in high school doing some experiment with that and the part of definition i tried to put is that wieght is proportional to mass so in a given system it can be equivalent(with same gravity and won't be equivalent when in a system there's not the same gravity). You want it not not that's a definition and including the rule Power=mass*gravity
Glad for new to not be new to physics, i'm not a physician even if i use some of this science in work, if you want more accurate definition i previously said that you can go to textbook. Unless you're an expert of this domain i think you shouldn't twist words to say there is no definition of mass. In less than 2s of searching the web i found this if any help: www.mass-gravity.com/ if the common encyclopedic definition don't satisfy you just dig on it who's better to pretend knowing and making strawman...
" i know mass is defined in physics as resistence to movement, and energy as capacity to change" so it's a fine definition when you argue there is not, what is lacking here?
You mistake characterization (a definition) and detection or sensing i guess. The mass of object can be sensed and measured and a mass is relative to the enery recquired to move this object. The measure is not the definition and the definition not the quantification.
"since we never now what the essence of matter or energy are"
Really? What you mean by essence or energy? A mass is a "energy"(as a force of resisting movement) so we know what it apply to. What would be essence is not required and don't enter in any sense of definition.
As for energy let talk about other energy type as common as mass or weight in the use of ours nowadays life: i.e. electricity. If you don't know the "essence" of it you can learn about easily in our world of informations. It's something about electric charge's, electromagnetic interaction ad at a sub level of atom difference in potential based on electrons. So those(i just quoted) are the very essence of it in the sense of what is matter. As it's for mass to be related to the gravitational force who is the essence of what make matter interact with other. But yet none of this are very easy topic as you suggest, and require some more learning and understanding than "not bneing new in physics". As for example some discovery of what hold matter together and why we don't go though a chair when sitting on it or through the ground when we walk. A previous explanation used electromagnetic force to tell that but the quantic explanation of things goes much further and better to explain it, even if it's not intuitive and goes by model we can't accept for being easily logic it has been proven true and science of quantic is part of the modern technology we use, like when using a computer hard drive or a USB storage key. So the "very essence of matter" is some we know and probably some we don't know yet. And we cant know what we not yet know. Dos it make some sense for you?
Bc it's not making sense for me when you compare a so called god: mystical entity and the rules existing in the world we know about energies such gravity or mass or other energy type we (humans) can detect and measure by multiple ways, used in so many of the current mechanics and technologies, studied and able to predict in a model what will happen(a blueprint making able to make functionnaly items/machines). I think you're not fair with the god you have believe on it because none of this apply to it/him/her so the comparaison is some weak point tending to proving god or gods when you haven't any element of capability to measure or use this mystical hypothesis in the real world...when the fundamental forces(fundamental like as essences) of the universe(gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak attractions) of other forces we call usually energies(heat, cold, electricity, weight and mass...)
Great debate. For anyone that wants to see an extensive engagement and rebuttal to Swinburne's work (and the works of other Theists), I'd recommend taking a look a look J.L. Mackie's _The Miracle of Theism_ which is widely regarded as one of the best defenses of Atheism ever published.
What's fascinating to me, is Christian scholars of the "Classical Theist" variety (DBH, Stump, Davies, Kerr, Oderberg, Pruss, Koons) actually agree with J.L. Mackie's critique of Swinburne found in his book, "The Miracle of Theism."
What most of them add, is that they still feel secure in their Platonic/Thomistic forms of Theism. However, they *should* happen upon Jordan Howard Sobel's work, which was instrumental in offering Naturalist alternatives to Theism, particularly theories regarding persistence. Logic and Theism is a game-changer!! William Lane Craig himself has the highest praise for Sobel!!
These are heavy-hitting authors to be sure, but a journey worth embarking!
Best regards to the Real Atheology team!
Mackie is a beast! But have you heard of a guy named Frank Turek?
@@flameonyouyesyortube Frank Turek is not a philosopher.
@@fujiapple9675 It was a joke
Swinburne and Mackie were actually good friends who debated the existence of God publicly many times. I definitely agree that TMoT is well worth a read- it's THE best atheist book I've read.
Why we knocking the wrong door? Why so feel in shape as par mindset ... Energy , Energy , Energy , motions, feelings, light, heat.heal,feel the magic of universal soul...
I LOVE YOU PEOPLE OVER THERE THIS FOR SHUR GIVES THE HUMAN ❤️HEART A PLACE TO SEE AND START TO CHOOSE 🧬LIFE LOVE KINDNESS & CHANGE
The entire arguement from the affirmative is that: I can't imagine how any of this could "be" without god doing it ...therefore ...god. This is the classic "arguement from ignorance". Because you can't imagine (explain) how something is, you don't get to just come up with an explanation (imagine a god) to explain it. His whole arguement is a "presupposition": god exist, therefore all this stuff. He has created a god that is capable of creating what he can not otherwise explain and is using this god as his explanation. The arguement is quite "circular". He has offered zero actual evidence for the existance of god ...only a supposition. As smart as he is, he doesn't seem to know the difference between a "claim" and actual "evidence".
@Jon I "strawmanned" the affirmative? Absolutely not! What do you think .."postulating" ..means? It means exactly the same thing as ...a "presuposition". Presuposition ...postulating ...same thing. How did I "strawman" anything? I merely pointed out exactly what the presenter did .."postulate" (presuppose) a God to answer questions that he, otherwise, does not have an answer for. Another thing ..because the chances of "something" may be "infinitesimally small" doesn't mean that it's ...impossible. The "infinitesimally small" likelyhood is the existance of this God he created, which he has provided zero evidence for ...just "postulated" him/her.
@Jon How do you judge the probability, given a sample size of one?
@Jon We have one universe to examine. How do you figure the probability that different universes could exist with different physical laws? You can't, so you just say god did it.
@Jon So do those other universes have different gods, or the same god, or no gods?
I'm not seeing how you get to the conclusion that this universe was created by a god for the special benefit of humans who can live on a fraction of the surface of one planet out of billions.
@Jon The probability is not so small if you say there are countless universes each with countless stars and on every star there is a chance of life developping. So it may be like winning the lottery but with billions over billions of lottery tickets.
How can one determine the probability of something that they cannot show to be possible? My intuition tells me that there's a categorical fallacy with such a claim, but I'm genuinely curious
The probability of anything in it self is amazing. Why is there something instead of nothing.
@@mmohon93 I don't disagree. What truly interests me is the interaction between the nihilism within science and the religious worldview dominated by meaning. They are two separate narratives for describing reality. The scientific understanding is not designed to question "why is there something rather than nothing?" Whereas the religious worldview wasn't designed to ask "how is there something rather than nothing?"
As an agnostic atheist myself (agnostic theist on a good day), I can't help but find increasingly similar patterns between my own view of meaning within the context of naturalism and the orthodox conception of god, particular in Christ. I view my existence as the precursor to my experience of meaning, but the orthodox views meaning as the precursor to the evolution of our experience and I honestly don't think either view is wrong
They are comparing the worldview and both are consistent with laws of logic
@@sus-eo7qz yeah but probability is a prediction and Swineburne speaks of it in post hoc abduction. I do respect Swineburne's view. How he conceptualizes god is honestly much more aligned with a naturalist framework, albeit mystical, but this is something that I see theists do a lot and I don't see how it isn't a categorical error.
Because they have been brought up to believe something that is now fundamental to their mental well being.
When was this?
"How can a person be so sure something does not exist if at the same time they claim they are open minded enough to consider something might exist outside of their current knowledge"
the problem is not in them who are master in this topic as a professor, that is in you who don’t have basic understanding in pilosophy
@@deczen47 they are obviously not masters if they have a blatant contradiction in their opinion.
@@100musicplaylists3 I doubt you understand what law of contradiction is
@@deczen47 he just smoked you son, calm down
Question: There have been thousands of gods throughout history. Which one you believe in depends on when and where you were born. Why does that not tell you that people just make up stuff for things they don't understand? How do you know the god you believe in, is the real one? What are the odds statically?
Everyone worships the same God but with just different names and different ways
@@offense53 no they dont. A Muslim would cut your tongue out for suggesting that
Just study about the Shroud of Turin and you will know who is God and how Hee revealed Himself
@@offense53 everyone worships the same god? How can that be true when the Hindus have more than one god?
@@rovildcrasta4436 the shroud of Turin was proven to be fake. Oh dear.
Swinburne is great! Amazing thinker and debater. Thanks for uploading this debate
I also think that Professor Richard Swinburne is a great thinker and he is great that he right now has the attention he deserve, also his work is amazing
What is so great about him? Lots of things to comment on but for example equating a simple being with having zero limits is very flawed reasoning. The simplest being is the one who has the most limits, not the least.
the guy has an imaginary friend...whats great about that??
@@Myrmion909 If it includes limits on existence the simplest being you seek is non-existant, and dodging this should that beiing of yours be the worst at everything?
@@Eskon2 I just defined what a simple being would be. Concerning what ctreated our universe, I would say it would have to have the properties to bring the universe into existence and nothing more. With this in mind, I would say properties like all-knowing or all-powerful appear to be unnecessary.
In my opinion, there were way too many, It Is so Because I Believe It Is so And so Do Many Others, answers for such a prominent debate in such an esteemed arena.
Watched all of it 1:08:27
Probably not one defined by religions
What makes you say that?
Can you please elaborate, because if i remember correct, the only thing that you make is an assertion, also the idea of Divine Atriboutes is something that is almost universaly agree in all monotheist religion, and the only thing they change of that atriboutes is when they tried to make God a personal God, beside the fact that he is the creator of the world, so can you please elaborate
I’m sorry but from the opening argument of Mr. Swinburne, I already see an issue. God is in no way a valid use of Occam’s razor. It creates as many issues (if not more) than it resolves in this case, I.e “Where did he come from? If god exists and made the universe, why make it the way it is? “ and so on.
two questions that actually make no sense when applied to god, where did he come from?, as long as we are talking about god, his essence it´s existence, so in fact we see no being in this world that is not capable of corruption, everything that we see has start point in time and an ending, as long as this is not a sustainable to the infinite we need to accept the existence of a first being who was not created. so the second question its as easy as to say that god made the world this way because it´s the best world possible, or one good world among infinite possibilities. (Leibnitz and Aquinas answers)
@Dog boy Nah, atheism is
Those who deny Divinity renounce to elementary logic intentionally, while the following simple reasoning is proving God's existence: *This reality, with us into it, is not the result of nothing, or the result of no intelligence, because from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes.*
Furthermore, while all what we are asked by the Creator is to love (strive for) perfection (wisdom / goodness / justice, pure love...), only those who want to use freedom for evil are opposing to God/Jesus. *_"Be perfect therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect"_* Matthew 5, 48 Unfortunately, too many people have refused over history, and too many still refuse nowadays, to follow this.
Here is not Heaven, but a school and exam for our immortal souls (us), for those who did not listen by the Creator to understand the value of "light" without experiencing the "darkness".
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God rewarding accordingly the free choices/deeds *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
God is not showing intentionally direct evidences (as atheists want) because He wants to see our *free* choices, how much we love perfection (100% goodness, wisdom, justice, pure love....) and how much we detest evilness = stupidity.
If/when we will have direct evidences of God, as atheists want, then we ALL will have immediately interested love regarding our Heavenly Father, but now, the really good humans, who love God/Jesus only from the revelation of the truth, can prove their true love for Divinity, for perfection, while living here with 100% freedom.
The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose. That is why it is not easy to fight continuously with what Satan has done to this world (carnivores, parasites, viruses, bad bacteria... the so called _"weeds"_ in Matthew 13:24-43) and to ourselves ... because *until our physical death we fight with the works of the fallen angels and of their tools, the evil=stupid people, the consequences of evilness = stupidity.*
I liked the add.
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO BIG TALK
Just because we know nothing about almost everything, we cannot say there is God. Similarly just because we can explain a negligible fraction of nature, we cannot say that there is no God. That is why I am neither an atheist nor a believer. I am an agnostic who is uncertain about both the conclusions. However, if there is God then we all are His/Her children and it's foolish to kill one another in the name of religion.
That's funny. As far as I know, Swinburne doesn't argue for a God of the Gaps. Maybe you should read his work?
do not hesitate, there is no god !
Where does Professor Swinburne argue for God as a fallacy? Can you please give us the minute and the explanation please, waiting for the answer
@@mettakaruna5870 Can you please explain yourself?
@@pedrogonzalez9934 after you
The truth of belief on the existence or non existence of God will be reveal to each and one at the appointed time. Time will do the work...
Not really
@@benjamintrevino325 Yes really. Grow up and try accepting God. You will be amazed how loving He is. ❤❤❤
@@slurdyboi I already did that, for about 30 years, and then I grew up.
@@benjamintrevino325 Or heared false information. How come people older than you 100% or maybe even your age are still religious. You’re the one who didn’t grow up.
@@slurdyboi being grown up is knowing when to exit a social media discussion with a so-called "Christian" who can't even be civil, let alone Christ-like. Go try to insult someone else into believing in your "loving" God.
Good to see these guys have matured and evolved lol. Same argument for 40 years . Just cos the maths was too hard for one of them?
I think God can represent different things to different people. I'm not religious but I still believe you got to believe in something...whatever it is.
I believe in God not existing.
@@cygnusustus that's a belief God to everyone who believes is the conscious power that created the universe the other option is an inevitable cause there's only 2 I here some atheists trying to say the sun is God it feeds us etc that's not God
@@davidevans3223
No atheist says the Sun is god.
Try again.
@@cygnusustus he's a bit small minded I don't believe most atheist think much they just don't believe in creation but when some try explaining why many other people have believed in a higher power by using the sun as an answer for all it's pure ignorance and tbh he thinks he knows more than most which is nonsense he knows about his subject that's far less than 1% of everything to be known
@@davidevans3223
Atheists think a lot. That is why they are atheists.
"when some try explaining why many other people have believed in a higher power by using the sun as an answer for all it's pure ignorance"
No, there is some truth to that. The full answer is much more complex, of course.
"tbh he thinks he knows more than most"
I have no idea "who" you are a talking about.
You really need to work on forming complete and coherent sentences.
God exists and always will be as he created us and everything. Punct
Make sure to thank him for cancer as well.
Freedom of the will, the devil, and a Natural law theodicy / Soul-building theodicy seems more than enough to answer this.
@@Paine137 first of all most cancer is pretty much manmade. Secondly. That is an argument for there not being a God because why?
Where have someone promised you that this life is soppused to be paradise? And peace and no illness and no hardship? Have anyone ever promised you that? For all we know this could be like hell in a sense or a hard school. Or like being in the army. Terrible when youre in it, but you come out as a changed man
Why is god a man?
Why does god only talk to male messenger?
Why does the creation of life require a man and woman?
@@eddieyan3017 (1) God is not a man (2) God does not only talk to male messengers (3) because God chose to make it that way
Just a lttle example of human body design. Body nerves are like electrical naked copper wire and insulated copper wire with plastic rubber sheet. The nerve are two typle one called Myelinated(insulated) by fiber sheet and Non Myelinated. The diffrence is the first allows fast pulse movement and the second is slower pulse movement. My question who designed such complex nerve system?
Alors il est temps de revoir la définition de la ( Matière). Comme nous avons revue la définition du (Temps) mettons nous aux travail. Une vraie et honnête définition de la Matière s'impose.😎
If you want some better perspective, not that stretched on Christian part, would recommend Aquinas 101 on Thomistic Insitute channel. I disagreed with both speakers, as I think Catholic thought offers better account of for example the moral problem, without going to compensating, or paying back by God. So yeah, something to check out maybe :)
As far as I’m aware, there isn’t a theodicy that is unique to Roman Catholic thought (to the exclusion of the rest of the Christian world). That said, I’m glad you’ve discovered a satisfactory account given to you by Roman Catholics.
Freewill from matter, chance and energy? No. Therefore there is a creator ✅
But is there free will?
@@xavierharrison1223 Are you a determinist? The moral implications of this position are substantial, as a warning
@@nanashi2146 More or less, yes I am a determinist. I think free will is mostly an illusion
@@xavierharrison1223 Do you believe that people can be held accountable for their actions then? And also, how can free will be "mostly" an illusion?
@@nanashi2146 that's a weak argument and one that's well covered already so I won't waste my time. Namely, people's thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. Also, if someone is truly a harm to society, imprisonment is moral whether or not they are truly 'responsible' for said actions for the benefit of others.
Mans search for ultimate truth continues
Some people seek knowledge to disagree with one another, not to find solutions to the problems.
Unfortunate.
It is not a problem., but a riddle that is unsolvable. We can continue to travel either with faith or without. A third choice does not exist.
@@christophervj4369 a riddle remains a problem if it is unsolved. Why would you differentiate between the two? Please avoid complexity and move towards simplicity.
This question was beautifully answered and explained simple. by the one of the great teacher of our time Jiddu Krishnamurti.
Just give us the gist of it
@@peterp-a-n4743 You would think that if t´he had anything to say, he would have said it...
@@peterp-a-n4743 The gist is that god doesn't exist. That there's belief and then there's truth. He poses the question if god is some extremely powerful entity that created humans then why did he make life so suffering for most, why didn't he make humans enlightened? Thought has created god out of fear/uncertainty and then thought worships the image which thought has created.
and here comes the indian. each country needs its local servers and local web.
@@busterbaxter828 i have the right to express my belief that God exists. i don't want to live in a world where 🐽 are in charge
It's all about how you define 'God'.
Excellent point Mister Singh.
@@IslandGirlKelly indeed, in many ways we are gods ourselves
I think Professor Swinburne, will define God as an inmaterial being, that created the universe and his laws, and will seek a personal relation with human beings
Mr. Swinburne can come to my house at bed time to help me get to sleep by lecturing me until I snooze.
Yes:
- The High Priestly Prayer, John 17:1-26.
- The Sermon on the Mount, Mat:1-48
- Judgment on False Teachers, Jud 1:3-16
- Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Eph 1:18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints
Wow! We have killed each other, children have died of hunger, mothers have died during childbirth, others have been enslaved and there’s still too much suffering in this world - all these we’re told are part of a divine plan for the greater good….and I wept!
There's no reference point of Good or Evil without the abstraction of a God's law. Either we listen to a God or we become Gods ourselves
@@tonyjk please demonstrate that god exists
Can you rise up above Ditchken's argument. These arguments you make are age old. Rise up dude... Don't be a child. Any child can make these kind of arguments and say there is no God
@@rovildcrasta4436 I don’t say there is no god I say there is no good reason to believe any god exists
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 please do the proper research on the Shroud of Turin and you will realise there is astoundingly good reason to believe there is God
The way Swinburne explains is absolutely soothing 🙌
So are nursery rhymes.
Because it is soothing does not implicate truth value.
One cannot prove or disprove God. And what purpose is served in doing so? Those who believe the reason for existence is God will continue to do so. If that gives them satisfaction, purpose, and a satisfactory answer then that doesn't prevent another from adopting the opposite or another reason for existence. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
Sounds great. Knowing what’s actually true is stupid, so let’s remain infantile.
The problem laws when those who believe in a God assume they have the right to impose their moral code on others who don't believe or don't have the same God
Drwatsonca
How do you explain the agreement in moral code between religious and non-religious? Most everyone on the planet will agree that murdering the innocent is not acceptable. That seems to be written in the conscience of all men. Along with many other morals. So where and how did this agreement come about?
@@Paine137 True? The point is that you cannot prove or disprove God. Therefore whatever you believe is just that - a belief, not truth.
Where is Swinburne's hand-out, to which he refers on several occasions?
Maybe God is like a videogame developer.
And the idea of the game is:
,, A character has to figure out how the 'system' he's living in works. Only by achieving a 100% "Knowledge Score" the character is able to meet it's 'developer'.
I'd have to play that videogame over and over again, because It'll take eternity to reach 100% on my own.
And that's why there's multiplayer-mode!
Plus, you get more than 1 'life'! Dead doesn't mean "game over" ! It means: Try again!
The game is called: "Escape Reincarnation".
Which "god"?
I quite agree that every person has the right to choose for themselves whether to believe in Our God Yaweh, of the Bible or to Reject the whole message of Salvation, as they will , according to the Bible be judged on Judgment day, and as Jesus said if they reject you, shake the dust from your feet and leave.
I quite agree that every person has the right to choose for themselves whether to believe in any of the thousands of invented and plagiarized gods that were born out of abject ignorance, even when believers of such nonsense smugly feign humility.
@@Paine137 i see so much contradictory words in ur statement.
There are so many religions so it's not really valid sorry
I really do not like the word Religious, but apart from that, if you. Knew me you . may find me a friendly and helpful chap who is a little up beat, i will always try and answer reasonable questions should they come up in a Conversation to be continued later as ime on a bumpy bus journey atm.
@@lonewanderer1239 If you have one real apple, and thousands of other people make fake apples out of wax and are convinced they're real, does that mean your real apple isn't real?
No. The fake apples don't affect the realness of your apple.
The existence of many religions does not negate one of them being true. Your argument is illogical.
Though I disagreed with him in the aspect of Religion, Peter Millican is my Favourate Philosopher.
As I write the autobiography of God, I find that no arguments on either side resonate.
God do exists
Without proof I can say he does not exist.
I can smash your ideas of god, reality and yourself radically. :) So radical even these old guys talking mumbo jumbo would be blown away. So radical you might never be the same again. Would make a great book:)
*No.*
A solid maybe.
Am I really hearing right, " it is good for the person to die defending their country" Question: Who said they felt good dying for their country? How good will it be for the people that love them!
What if he hadn't fought for his country and then his and many other families were then killed by the attacker????
A myth usually perpetuated by people, usually from a posh and snooty background, who would never send themselves or their own children to the front line but instead back up their bravado by sending the children of the poor to die defending their country.
Looking at you Churchill.
"We" will fight on the beaches when he actually meant "you" (and your children).
@@jascam74 what rubbish. You need to read more about Churchill. In fact during the British empire that is exactly what wealthy families did do and the officers were very often shot first.
@@scatton61 Not true.
@@scatton61 i assume you you know about dunkirk and the aid from scottish and irish fishing boats...
My dawg has the most 🔥 durag I've ever seen
We all are nothing less than God. God is inside of everyone's Body. God is not physical body. God is seeing everything from inside through our physical eyes, God is listening everything from inside through our ears, Being a powerful force of the universe God is breathing inside our body, God is loving everyone without touching our body.
But "WHY people are not BEHAVING in GODLY MANNERS & playing games ?"
We all have to Behave like "HOW ONE GOD IS BEHAVING WITH ANOTHER GOD IN GODLY MANNER" then Each one of us Realize That GOD DOES EXIST.
It makes no sense to conflate morality with creation from a scientific perspective. Clearly, morality has evolved as we have, so where is the evidence for a God demanding or requesting it?
Absolutely, this always saddens me as an argument.
@@joshuataylor3550 - They feel they have the right to create their own logic out of thin air. I have been raising dogs since the 80s and not once have I asked a Mother dog, “why do you care for your pups?” Conversely, I have never inquired about where other evolved instincts that lead to fights etc come from outside of the logical explanations given to me in biology class. What evidence do any of these people have to show that when we humans do the exact same thing it comes from elsewhere?
@@kingwillie206 morality came from animals? Right.
@@alfazehsas - Absolutely! I just watched a dog give birth and care for her pups with more precision than any human, so yes, it originated from animals.
Thank you For this message. I know God is real. God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid. The Lord is my strength. But I feel so alone and ashamed please pray for me. I’m a single mother with two autistic children. I lost my job for declining the vaccine. I declined due to my pre existing health condition Lupus and heart disease. I have been struggling to provide for my children since. We are facing homelessness at the end of this month. Please keep me in your prayers. I have faith God will provide abundantly for me and my children. I will keep faith.
All unfalsifiables are equally valid.
Just an elaborate scam.
Get your god to help. She gave you health issues so she can take them away.
ua-cam.com/video/Q2olIFD55Q0/v-deo.html
Why would you not get vaccinated because of lupus and heart disease? If anything you _should_ get vaccinated because of those things, since you’re at a much higher risk of getting sick if you contract covid. My brother’s girlfriend has lupus and she’s been vaccinated, she’s perfectly fine. Perhaps consult further with a licensed doctor about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, because it’s certainly better than the alternative, getting severely sick while having pre-existing conditions, that’s just a recipe of disaster. Please, talk to a doctor rather than relying on things that you see online.
@@pope9187
It might be a dose of loopy that the mouse has got. The imaginary god could step up to the plate and eliminate the need for vax. If a person was genuine, they would speak to a professional and not spew rubbish on a YT like this. It could be as poor as a church mouse, so it could go and live there. I am sure the loving x'tians will find a place.
Mr. Swinburne, did the God you say exists write all the Holy books?
I wonder if Mr Millican would be happy in a world where he didn't get to voice his opinion that he would just be an automoton without any ability to act freely and with agency. It seems that is the world that attracts the most ardent atheist which loves to tell God what the world should be like.
Millican saying God doing something across all time by divine fiat having no correspondence with our experience of the universe.... isn’t that what laws of physics are? Theists agree that God is in the plane of laws, ideas, mathematics, and it fits with our experience. Someone show me what I’m missing in his argument.
"In the plane of"?
What the hell does that even mean?
"Someone show me what I’m missing in his argument."
Coherence? Also, logic.
@@cygnusustus "A claim without evidence can be dimiss without evidence" Christopher Hitchens, and before you said something, i use the phrase because you just claim, and neither show somethi g in the original comment, also because the ad hominem
@@cygnusustus great question. That God would exist in the same way that laws or mathematics exist, not matter/energy.
@@pedrogonzalez9934
What did I claim that you would like me to demonstrate, child?
Also, please learn what the term "ad hominem" means before you use it. It will prevent you looking stupid again.
@@vanessaburdine4865
The laws of mathematics exist as a language constructed by human beings. Is God a language? Is God constructed by human beings?
Children of Kaine didn’t inherit belief, this was mentioned by other prophets.
I never believed in anything we couldn't measure or predicted by scientists I'm not a Christian and there predictions were just beliefs to exsplain the fine turning etc
two colossuses!
Beautiful debate, I'm agnostic btw
I am kinda mixture of agnostic and theist. They both gave logical points. I can't say much about that, that is too intellectual and academically for me.
@@emanuel.is.suffering honest
He does. Atheism is dead. Pip pip carry on. Better things to do then rehash the known.
Zeus is happy that you know the truth.
... Does a bear s*** in the woods?
No. Bears knock down the door to your cabin and do their business in there. Because they can
which one?
For intelligent man to ascribe the production of the world to a casual jumble of atoms, is more senseless and ridiculous than all the fables of the poets. I’m utterly dumbfounded!
Science is a new religion which is about "here and now" - but unfortunately many of the believers don't admit this.
Wake up !
Religion is the intersection of dogmatism and the supernatural.
Science does not overlap either of those domains. But unfortunately many religious believes don't admit this.
Try again, child.
@@cygnusustus Sadly the new atheist don't agree with you, in fact neither some atheist philosophers like Massimo Pigliucci. A lot of people in the recent times has decided to replace religion with something called Scietifism
@@pedrogonzalez9934
"Sadly the new atheist don't agree with you"
Yes they do. I've yet to meet a New Atheist who believes science is a religion.
Scientism exist only in the minds of frustrated apologists who cannot support their own beliefs. I've never met an atheist who professes scientism.
Let my know why you are ready to have a real and honest discussion, beyond your strawmen.
@@cygnusustus Well then you don't know neither John Loftus or Alex Rosenberg, also why did you don't said the same about Massimo Pigliucci, an atheist that has writte that yes they renove religion of their lives, to elebate scienve to the point of the whole truth and the guide of reality, also see the book of Sam Harris about morality for another example, in fact to your surprise my son Alex Rosenberg (a philosopher of Duke University), defend scientism in his book The Atheist's guide to reality. Also to your information that's a term that even Thomas Nagel (yet again another atheist philosopher, to you sweetheart) use it to critices Sam Harris works, si tell me when New Atheist don't use that in fact site me a blog, book, or anything were they defend that they are not Scientism, when they even develop the idean of scientific naturalism, when science is just a tool to discover the world. Also where did i Straw man you, tell me the part in my original text. The only thing that you knwo about falavies is in red hearing and in begging the question
How miserable today's philosophers look like 😐
What makes you say that?
@@jean1785 Hard to explain if you still don't get it yourself
Did I spot Oliver Crisp in the audience?
SIR FRED HOYLE Falsified Evolution:
1- Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and also an atheist
2- In 1987 he wrote ‘Mathematics of Evolution’ concluding the Darwinian theory is false (accepted micro-evolution)
3- What Hoyle showed was that novel genes for new proteins could not possibly have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection;
4- _“Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from slightly different rabbits...”_
5- Even assuming 95% of the genome is junk and the code is 30% redundant could not save evolution
6- Concerning new genes _“Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.”_
7- In 2018 TB. Fowler reviewed Hoyle's Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and said _“The conclusion is that while Hoyle's mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value.”_
8- Hoyle did not consider large variations because he knew the obvious negative effect on probability of beneficial change only magnifies the problem; Hoyle
9- _“we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology? The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by a random process"_ The probability = 1e-120 ?
10- Hoyle was so convinced he invented a panspermia model pushing the problem of new genes out into the cosmos admitting it’s still a problem
11- Since Hoyle’s work was verified and its only alternative worse for evolution of new genes his assertion that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is wrong is a *falsification!*
... The best name for God is the mystery and the energy. Forget all that Christian stuff.
God may exist as an entity but it isn’t the christian or indian or whatever god humans have invented, for sure
Sorry, you are confusing the material with the creator of the article
@@Pedozzi I accept that There is only one God
Pedozzi you has become very close to the true and only Creator, and this is a sound thinking
Is this actually a debate at a destinguished university? Loads of words in the first ten minutes that actually dont make any difference for mankind or helps develop thinking minds.
okay, calm down
Countryside talk
in life you should believe what you see and question what you hear.
Gosh, no. You should question both what you see and what you hear. Lots of optical illusions illustrate this.
Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thank you!
Are we still discussing this??
You got the answer?
@@stfuinc.202 Science provides indisputable proof. But God is immaterial (atleast one thing where all religions agree with each other).
Yes because people still believe that something can come from nothing despite all evidence saying otherwise.
@@HebrewsElevenTwentyFive Stawman Atheists in general Don't believe that at all and some Atheist scientists who Think that they are not talking about Philosophical Normal Use of Nothing But a empty Space which is Something not nothing
@@burhanmushtaq7597 check out Muhammad hijab UA-cam channel who make videos and Debates about God's existence and Islam so on He Even recently wrote a book on this the name of the book is your name Burhan i believe u can download that for free from his community post
I would have thought the fine-tuning argument is sufficient to explain the existence of God. The alternative multi-verse idea is just a desperate atheistic attempt to counteract the obvious consequence of the fine-tuning argument.
How do you know it’s one god and not -14? It takes the almighty council of irrational deities to fine-tune a universe. Have faith!
@@Paine137 It's like he's walking into his house seeing his alarm has been set off, his window is smashed and his stuff his missing, he calls the cops and says he was robbed and sets forth to find out who the robber is and the whole time you're undermining his efforts by going "how do you know there isn't 14 robbers?" "have some faith"? and using THAT as an argument to say there isn't any, he'd need additional evidence to justify each postulated robber, otherwise you're "postulating causes beyond necessity" (breeching Occam's Razor) you're only justified to postulate what's necessary to explain the data, until new data emerges showing the need for more God's/robbers he has no reason to evoke them.
@@Paine137 because the 14 will never agree on the value of the cosmological constants.
It takes 1 second to throw a bucket of paint against a white wall and create a pattern. Now, the odds of repeating that 1 second procedure to get the exact same pattern is infinitesimally small. Similar logic seems to apply for the fine tuning argument for god.
The fine tuning argument is not proven fact, or even a widespread scientific theory.
If one cannot think of something that cannot be thought of, how did we think of a creator?
Why should a creator be unthinkable?
@@mikeabrahams679 well how do you think we come up with thinking of a creator without the ability to think of something that cannot be thought of?
@@elliot7205 bruh, that's deep!
What makes you think that a creator cannot be thought of?
@@steveknight878 I want you to think of something without relying on already available information?.....
They say man is made in the image of God; I say God is made in the image of man. God is made in the images of ancient rulers. Using today's words, God is made in the image of the top 1%, by the top 1%, and for the top 1%.
This is called revisionsism and sadly it's not uncommon to be applied especially in biblical scholarship there's a whole umbrella of marxist and 4th wave feminist literature even in explaing something like the Exodus.
I've just listened to the first sentence from Richard Swinburne explaining why he thinks there's a God, being, it's the simplest hypothesis to explain the universe and all it's features. Straight away i'm thinking, really? That doesn't follow at all that just because it's the simplest it's the correct explanation. I will listen to the rest.
Agreed, Occam's Razor being used to explain an existence of God for the mere fact of our own existence is a fallacy, a philosopher should never begin their argument with an explanation as to why their fallacy is not a fallacy.
What the heck is this lol. Swinburne is explaining his particular model of theism, namely theistic personalism, and why given the theoretical virtues it is indeed the most likely view in question. That is NOT a fallacy, there simply is no such fallacy of applying Occam’s razor to metaphysical paradigms, this is just pure nonsense from you, seeing fallacies that are simply not there. There isn’t even a name for this supposed fallacy, because it isn’t one.
To clarify, Swinburne has published many written works, such as his book The Existence of God, where he explains why several of the theoretical virtues, such as explanatory power and scope etc, basically in the context of metaphysics collapses to only explanatory power and simplicity, and hence given the competing paradigms of Theism and naturalism being equal in explanatory power, he thinks simplicity would be the tiebreaker here, and given that theism postulates no new types of entities, given the theistic personalist model he’s defending takes a univocal position in theological language, and given that the power is expressed in binary terms giving even more simplicity, as no further explanation is needed in terms of any arbitrary stopping points, then it would follow Theism as he is defending it would be the simplest view possible.
To state this is somehow a fallacy is just terribly mistaken, and rather silly. For starters you could name the fallacy which you’ve claimed existed that states it’s a fallacy when “Occam’s razor is applied to God”. I will be waiting, and would be waiting forever, since there is simply none.
And yes simplicity is a theoretical virtue that is used to determine the most likely true position. By simplicity one doesn’t mean the property of being easily grasp by the intellect, but rather that a theory is non composite, that is composed of less theoretical entities and hence is more likely, given there are “less chances to be wrong” essentially. Less things need to be true for the whole paradigm to be true. This is a theoretical virtue well used in science, history, metaphysics etc.
And given that Swinburne’s model of theistic personalism as he defends it is the simplest view possible, then it follows that it is the most likely true view, and hence should be preferred-since that is where the evidence leads towards. Where reason leads us to.
Please read the above message by me for a summarised version as to why the theistic personalism Swinburne defends is the simplest possible explanation, and secondly, I would highly recommend you check out his book The Existence of God for an extensive treatment of the theoretical virtues, and its application to a comparison of paradigms.
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 Just because something is the simplest view doesn't automatically mean it's correct. The more we discover about the universe the more complex we find things are.
@@Whatsisface4 But let me tell you something, Graham oppy the naturalist prime defender of 21st Century postulate that in his book The best argument against God, called the simplisted explanation, as the idea that naturalism is only nature and theism is naturalism + God, and saying that we can evaluate the idea that how many times the person has to evaluate the postulation of the amount of entities need it to one teory of another and see how much do you need to use in the explanation part, making naturalist more probable than theism (his conclusion not mine)
The existence have not been proven in any way, so how can you "debate" it. As far as we know, no gods exist.
And what do you expect God is somewhere waiting for u to discover him? And what kind of proof are u asking?
@@burhanmushtaq7597 I'm not asking for any proof. I don't care.
@@kane2239 nor is there
As far as we know, all gods exist..... You said nothing with so many letters...
@dream coaster Don't think you understand the concept of proof.
The host made it very apparent what side he's on with that locket
God doesn't exist to those who DONT believe. And does exist to those who HAVE faith. Either belief doesn't counter prove the other wrong.
To believe or not to believe?? It's your choice
False, the earth is not only round to those that believe in it only. God exists for everybody, regardless your beliefs or wants.
@dream coaster Cool!!!
Jesus is King
@dream coaster Amen!
Jesus is King
@dream coaster All is vanity.
Jesus is King
Simply believing there is or isn't a God has no bearing on that proposition actually being true. Perception OF reality =/= reality, the map is not itself the territory it tries to describe. Drop this nonsense relativism.
27:28 "Nor should I argue for Atheism generally, I'll just attack his position of Theism." Can anyone recommend a single Theism vs Atheism debate where the Atheist doesn't do this? I haven't found one yet.
It seems they're all commiting fallacies of scientism which causes them to erroneously conclude they don't have any burden to provide rational reasons to believe their stance is true. I'm beginning to suspect they're doing this because they simply cannot provide any valid & sound arguments in favor of their position.
The burden of proof is *always* on those making positive claims. The atheist who simply is not convinced by theist claims has no burden unless he is claiming that no gods exist.
@@TerryUniGeezerPeterson But why should anyone be questioned on this ?
And that is not really an argument that the other should prove something when you can't prove the opposite..
The new world order!
Actually that's true, the best reply i found for atheism was given ironically by the brother of Hitchens himself!
ua-cam.com/video/VnIH4gomOqc/v-deo.html
This is the final answer for atheism because it's not a rational position it's an evil one.
@@TerryUniGeezerPeterson You claim *the burden of proof is always on those making the positive claim.* That is only how burden of proof is determined in *scientific* debates.
In philosophical debates beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, neither side can scientifically verify their position is true. Both sides have a burden to provide rational argumentation for why anyone should believe their position over the opposition.
Science is about observable, independently verifiable, physical EVIDENCE.
Philosophy is about the most rational way to INTERPRET that science. And opposing philosophical debates can only be settled by rational argumentation (not physical evidence), as all existing scientific evidence could be interpreted to work for either side.
May be you find the answer in regression and progression theories of Dr.Brain Weiss books ...
Is that Timothee Chalamet behind Millican?
Simplest argument for God's existence.
1.DNA contains coded information.
2.Coded information is observed that is created by conscious entities.
Likely conclusion: DNA was created by a conscious entity
U can make the same argument with Simulation Theory for quantum mechanics.
3. Our consciousness
4. Our innate ability to have a sense of wrong and right
5. The Qur'an
6. The probability of the big bang and it forming us
DNA isn't a computer code, its certain chemicals doing certain things. You will have to show that intelligence is needed for that.
@@prizma45 3,4,5 - that doesn't prove god in any way.
6 - We can't calculate the probability of big bang.
8. The Qur'an definitely proves Allah's existence, you just need the sufficient knowledge of the topic/field
@@prizma45 Just because it says god exists doesn't mean it's true. Give any evidence that god exists.
Also, 8?
Where is Richard Dawkins?
"Give me an evidence God exists!"
The evidence is everything around you and yourself
@@bc3779 the universe created us. that's all we know.
@@fraser_mr2009 🤦🏻♀️
Swineburne could have simplified (and saved time) by simply saying: “Because the Bible told me so.” But does it really tell us so? According to the NT, he who said, “Let there be light” created all things THROUGH Christ, by which they meant the seeking and then fully perfected human Spirit. Seeking, in that we naturally seek our most authentic, most foundational, and fullest body; and perfected in that our sense of self mirrors, owns, feels, and cares for that body. When Paul says: “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead,” he’s saying that our continuous and progressive bundling of all things into a single body is proof of its single soul within us. Our personal and emotional search for a “theory of everything”, and our coming closer and closer to it, is proof itself that we are its Spirit-which is the invisible thing of God. “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come [the very thing we are seeking], then that which is in part shall be done away…for now we see through a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” In other words, once we see the whole, the parts are done away within it, and our seeing is its very Self; so much so that when looking out onto the Universe-we look as in a mirror.
How do we know God exist? Because we are seeking his Body, which is ours.
If god knows everything past present and future even if he doesn't have a plan forward as claimed, if he knows how it's going to turn out then why test it?
How is a god the simplest explanation? How is the idea of a super being, that's unfalsifiable the best explanation? Swinburne lost this in his opening statement.
Do aliens exist?
Yeah cause it would surely be more complex than the thing it's trying to explain, so one is left with trying to explain god
Professor Swinburne, postulate the existence of God as the simple explanation for the whole existence of the world, in the sense that according to the naturalist explanation one would have to take brute facts into the pictures and natural phenomenas that are non-reductive to physical states (like the human mind) and certain factors that would better be part of theism as a unified picture. Also the existence of God according to Professor Swinburne would be something like non bound to material principeles and would be something like a being that is non-bound to the physical laws of nature, something that is external of the universe and something that is contingent in the sense that he would not necesite something that causes his state, because he alwais was or something like that. But if you need to read more about these idea of God i recomend his boon The existence of God or how he talk and defenided the term The Coherence of Theism
God isnt just the simplest explanation, God is the only rational explanation why anything exists. Some people just dont want it to be true. In the end judgement is coming for everyone, including atheists.
@@colinjava8447 God is as simple as anything could be, no parts, not made of anything.