We hold scientists in high esteem. This has gone to the heads of some of them. Their hubris in thinking their scientific knowledge can stretch over to non-scientific matters. I personally would trust their taste in home decorating sooner than trust their opinion on the validity of religions.
@jerrydecaire45
10 жыл бұрын
I don't really believe in God, I just have a lack of non-belief.
@subnetme
10 жыл бұрын
This is a nonsensical statement.
@jerrydecaire45
10 жыл бұрын
makes as much sense as the non-belief that atheists are pushing. But you're right, it makes no sense.
@subnetme
10 жыл бұрын
jerry decaire You're profoundly confused about how logic works. Atheism is a response to a theistic clam - God exists. Atheism couldn't exist without theism. Your pathetic attempt to play with words is laughable because you're trying to relieve yourself from the burden of proof. For someone claiming to have an IQ of 140, this is a very cheap attempt to discredit atheism. I was expecting more from you.
@jerrydecaire45
10 жыл бұрын
"confused," "pathetic," "laughable," "cheap," etc. For someone posing as some lofty example of profound logic, your response is very emotional and subjective. I was expecting as much from you.
@chrissolomon1151
10 жыл бұрын
Stan B This statement actually makes sense. Read what he said again, slowly and thoroughly. What he is saying is that he doesn't really believe or disbelieve in the existence of a God, but considers it's existence to be likely. People often do not have a well-developed mental faculty needed to read between the lines.
@tonyzaayter1606
5 ай бұрын
and much good has come...
@shawnchoi6106
11 жыл бұрын
I wish Professor Swinburne would have pointed out at least one thing that any of the "New Atheists" said and gave us his perspective on the matter. On the contrary, he merely made sweeping statements that the "same arguments have been around since there were thinkers of god" (which clearly is not true, because evolutionary thought has only been around for 150-200 years) and failed to give anyone on either side any form of intellectual or moral satisfaction. He talked, but he didn't say anything.
@elsiervo121
Жыл бұрын
Your wish has been satisfactorily given an answer and answers with some to spare. These answers are in the form of a very large body of work ranging from popular to sophisticated treatments of all that and more of what the new and old atheists have purported about God and His metaphysical status, our Epistemological status as it relates to belief in His existence and so fourth and so on. (not to fail to mention a quite large, in its own right, body of media ---videos such as these which cover an equal breadth of topics compared to what has been published in writing).
@Uccisore28
11 жыл бұрын
Cool, you're a perfect example of what Swinburne says in this video - you're presenting a traditional argument that has been around for a zillion years, with no indication that you've considered the traditional responses.
@doctornov7
11 жыл бұрын
You believe the universe is infinite? Why do you think that? There are better reasons to think that the universe is not infinite. The teleological argument is inductive and deductive depending on the version. The ontological is a basic argument which even the layman can understand. The argument is based on actual reasoning. You have not refuted any of them.
@doctornov7
11 жыл бұрын
1) The cosmological argument from contingency 2) The kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe. 3)The moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties 4) The teleological argument from fine-tuning 5) The ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality Feel free to try to dispute all of them, nobody has as of yet.
@roberttompkins6489
3 жыл бұрын
all have been handily dismissed-get up to date
@Ho-mb2wb
Жыл бұрын
@@roberttompkins6489 Your response to the first 2?
@Ho-mb2wb
Жыл бұрын
As for the 4th one, what is more likely; that you live in a universe within an infinity of universes (a multiverse) and that your universe in the one that sustains life, and you live in the correct planet for this to happen OR that the universe has been purposefully designed to be this way?! Both the multiverse and God can't be physically proven, but it seems to me that when we consider both the cosmological and the teleological arguments combined that it seems more reasonable to be a deist rather than an atheist. Atheism takes more faith than deism.
@adamryanisneato
11 жыл бұрын
These have all been addressed in the academic literature. If you have access to JSTOR, you should look into some peer review journals in philosophy of religion. Briefly: 1. God is not a contingent object. Contingent objects can fail to exist, necessary objects cannot. God is a necessary object. Nothingness requires that there be no necessary objects. 2. God's morals come from his omnibenevolent nature. 3. Intelligence is a great-making property, and God is defined as a maximally great being.
@DrHowbeit
11 жыл бұрын
I agree with the previous comment; It would have been useful if Swinburne had given at least one example. After all, studies keep showing a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity. Also studies have shown that atheists know The Bible better than Christians. References posted if requested.
@DrHowbeit
11 жыл бұрын
Check out Zuckerman, Silberman and Hall from the University of Rochester and Northeastern University. They made a meta-analysis of 63 studies conducted between 1928 and 2012 regarding intelligence and religiosity. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a survey on religious knowledge in 2010. It deals with knowledge of The Bible but also the religion as a whole. The study was focused on the US.
@richardclarke250
9 жыл бұрын
'not very high class'....lol I guess with that accent no one is of as high a class a him!
@vesogry
7 жыл бұрын
But Dawkins writings are not very high class when it comes to philosophy, you know that right?
@katrinaa2255
11 жыл бұрын
The cosmological argument states that nothing comes from nothing, yet this doesn't take into account infinite regression, in which case there is no certainty that there was a first cause, so you cannot prove God exists from this stance. The teleological argument is an inductive proof and therefore only leads to a probable conclusion. The ontological argument cannot simple define something into existence, claiming existence as a predicate does not make it so...there are 3 disputed
@Uccisore28
11 жыл бұрын
No. I'm asserting that God MAY have morally sufficient reasons, and since that possibility exists, Epicurus' formulation of the Problem of Evil doesn't button anything up. There is an inductive version of the argument that works much better. You should probably learn it. Or do you want me to teach you your own side of the arguments as well as mine?
@zachuram
12 жыл бұрын
New Atheists - same old fallacious arguments!
@시드니최서방
2 жыл бұрын
He doesnt say much. But i can hear him a lot!!!
@Uccisore28
11 жыл бұрын
Well, you obviously have internet access, I would suggest you google the inductive Problem of Evil if you want to learn it. It's not as strong of a position as a deductive argument like Epicurus' would be, but at least it hasn't been completely defeated.
@Uccisore28
11 жыл бұрын
My response? You should be more interested in the responses of the philosophical community, and apologizing for apparently never having heard of them. Anyway, THE response is that there are enough higher goods (charity, mercy, self-sacrifice) that require evil , and enough evil that is a product of human free-will, and is an unavoidable possibility if humans have free will, such that Epicurus' argument doesn't present a true dichotomy- God can be omni-good and powerful and still allow evil.
@Drweavil
11 жыл бұрын
"More sophisticated answers", which ones are they then?
@lfzadra
11 жыл бұрын
[This nature has simply been in existence forever] This is an unsupported assertion, not an argument. [if the universe did come from nothing] No current theory of cosmological origins says the universe came from nothing. If you can show that the universe came from nothing, congratulations. Not only you will win the next nobel prize of Physics, but will prove that things CAN come from nothing, and we can dismiss your God once for all.
@Uccisore28
11 жыл бұрын
Like I keep telling you, I'm not making anything up. I'm informing you of developments that people (even atheists) who actually study philosophy of religion have known since the 80's. You think we're having an argument. I'm trying to inform you of some basic things, and you're clinging to your ignorance because you like it. Meanwhile, I'm pointing out to the theists that may be reading that you're behaving exactly like the "New Atheists" complained about in the video above.
@Μύρων-β7τ
2 жыл бұрын
True
@doctornov7
11 жыл бұрын
I have 6 good arguments for God's existence. 1) The cosmological argument from the origin of the universe. 2) The teleological argument from the fine tuning of the universe for life. 3) The moral argument from the basis of objective moral values and duties. 4) The ontological argument from possibility of God’s existence to his actuality. 5) The argument from the resurrection of Jesus ans the facts surrounding it. 6) The argument from personal experience and the Holy Spirit within us all.
@jfrontier1
11 жыл бұрын
Since there is no god and that is a fact please provide these facts. You are the one making the claim, so prove it. So your claim makes it valid and true? Why is your claim any more valid than the theist?
@Uccisore28
11 жыл бұрын
It's not my concept. I'm taking the time to inform you of why Epicurus isn't a big deal anymore, because you didn't take the time yourself. "Omni-good" means 'as good as a being can possibly be'. The examples of evil you cite are the consequences of creating humans with free will. Is free will not a good? You're free to SAY that free will isn't worth the price of potential mass murder, but you can't ARGUE it without just referencing your personal emotions- so the POE isn't deductive.
@thespiritofhegel3487
3 жыл бұрын
'Unsophisticated stuff' is all you need to refute unsophisticated stuff.
@jfrontier1
11 жыл бұрын
So perhaps we should "Thanks God for the New Atheists"? After all, if they are getting people to talk about God and getting Christians to come up with proper defenses to counter these (poorly thought out arguments) then that is a good thing.
@lfzadra
11 жыл бұрын
["good morals" are not arbitrarily assigned but are literally His personality/essence.] God is good because God is intrinsically good answers nothing. You can't support circular reasoning with more circular reasoning, sorry. Everything in existence necessarily is what it is, otherwise the Law of non Contradiction would be false. To say that God necessarily is something is completely redundant and ad hoc.
@jfrontier1
11 жыл бұрын
Comparative theology is a fascinating subject. But can we not notice that perhaps God is trying to talk to all people in His own way. Just because people believe in more than one God does not invalidate His existence. I have read atheists works for years and have wiped the floor with their nonsense for years. Atheism is a joke for those of us who prefer to think for ourselves. Agreed, everyone should read the Bible, and then try to understand the context, as that is important.
@kleenex3000
10 жыл бұрын
He looks like a very late version of the Prince-of-Wales, WTH?! Does he not know, his Holy Scripture does not assert "G-D created the Physical Laws" This is very important, everybody guess WHY
@doctornov7
11 жыл бұрын
Yes they have been disputed but no disproved or shown to be false.
@YOSUP315
10 жыл бұрын
Well, I'm glad he's glad Christians will seriously test their faith. It's just too bad the theists haven't brought forward these answers that Swinburne describes in actual debates. That would be a good idea.
@Drweavil
11 жыл бұрын
What arguments are they exactly? The one where we say we simply don't believe the stories you place so much stock in? I don't understand how that is fallacious.
@nonyabuzness6457
11 жыл бұрын
I'm sorry...we haven't met. Yet you say that my arguments are bad... What exactly is poorly thought out regarding MY arguments? Put your money where your mouth is...or just close it.
@Drweavil
11 жыл бұрын
The fact that you would repeat the total opposite to what the honest truth of your religious complicitness, only proves that you've had a complete collapse of your critical faculties and are no longer capable of honestly questioning your beliefs. Not only that, your fear of the real answers, only forces you back to the familiar biblical warmth regardless of how profane downright wrong that bronze age nonsense is. You think you've saved your soul, I say you sold it.
@andrewrozario2476
6 жыл бұрын
Alan Donegan Bull..
@nonyabuzness6457
11 жыл бұрын
Explain/Prove your 2500 yr claim...don't make belief claims, without argument, proof, citation.
@lfzadra
11 жыл бұрын
1. Show me the evidence you have for the claim that god is not contingent, otherwise you are just assuming your own conclusion. If nothingness has rules of conservation, then it is not nothing, but something. 2. Where does his nature comes from? 3. Why the cause of the universe necessarily possess the great-making property of intelligence and not stupidity? Please provide me an answer, not new, baseless assertions. He must because he must is not support for your claims, ok?
@jfrontier1
11 жыл бұрын
How do you know? Have you actually taken the time to examine why people believe in God or any god like being? By the comments I see from you I doubt you have. So you deny the Bible as evidence? Why, because you choose to? And there are plenty of other arguments for God's existence. But again, even if this were to happen would you believe it, or do you prefer your defeater beliefs to the truth?
@Drweavil
11 жыл бұрын
I've also read the Bhagavad gita, the Hindu Veda's and I'm currently reading the books of Zoroastor. No doubt you've read them too... The fact is there isn't an Atheist alive who can't wipe the floor with your religions book and knowledge about them. Because we all actually do read them. And usually that's all it takes for anyone to tell that it's utter, utter nonsense. I heartily advise anyone investigating their faith to read your bible, it's the best atheist conversion tool there is.
@BleakGreyHorizon
11 жыл бұрын
Your asinine comment is beside the point. An invisible crocodile friend doesn't explain anything; whereas, the existence of God explains everything.
@doctornov7
11 жыл бұрын
Disprove them all then, one by one please.
@gustavom6615
3 жыл бұрын
Dawkins doesn’t understand 101 philosophy, Harris is a narcissistic idiot who doesn’t address the real issues, Hitchens is pure rhetoric and nothing substantial and Krauss is a clown with a five year old mind who does nothing but scream all day.
@adicristian354
6 ай бұрын
alave father
@IchFickDeineExistenz
11 жыл бұрын
five? there are 0, you can't have 5. i'll start off with that one: i've got an invisible crocodile friend. don't believe me? why? - because there's no evidence? wow, smart! same for god: i don't see him, i don't feel him - where's the evidence? (that's not even an argument - that's just the beginning)
@IchFickDeineExistenz
11 жыл бұрын
there's not a single valid argument in favor of god, but thosuands against him
@gabepearson6104
3 жыл бұрын
Ok bruh you probably haven’t even read JL Mackie so you can’t say anything on these arguments
@brunoditora8861
4 жыл бұрын
A very calm and educated way of saying nothing..... i wish you a very long Life ahead of you yet, you're not far at all from meeting no fucking one!
@markr927
9 жыл бұрын
I'm sorry but if the argument for a God relies upon sophisticated philosophical propositions or even convoluted logic then the argument for the God of the Bible, Quran Torah etc is lost.
@mohammedhanif6780
9 жыл бұрын
Why?
@markr927
9 жыл бұрын
Work it out ....But for a starter - It's supposed to be the omnipotent, omniscient being, c'mon...
@mohammedhanif6780
9 жыл бұрын
Mark Ridge is that reply meant to be clever? The sophisticated arguments are for those whose natural conciousness of God has atrophied and they need some intellectual medicine. Normal, spiritually healthy people don't need it.
@markr927
9 жыл бұрын
That's just a cop out. if your god is all that it says in you book then he won't need us to help him out. The only reason for trying to justify it is because there's nothing there, so you need the contorted arguments. It's just an old method of social control - Do what I say or you will suffer, even after death. Believers need to move on from the tooth fairy and her friends. Spiritually healthy people - what does that mean? Rhetorical question.
@mohammedhanif6780
9 жыл бұрын
Mark Ridge 🙋
@lobsterbobable
9 жыл бұрын
"Center for Christian Thought" Oxymoron. Swinburn "Where did you learn to talk like than, some Panama City sailor wanna hump hump bar?" (Jack Nicholson- As good as it Gets.)
@Qillz
9 жыл бұрын
I completely agree with his closing statement that this debate is causing "... Christians to think about these matters in rather greater detail. Maybe, in the end, much good will come of it." Hopefully, the "good" he mentions will be what I experienced upon careful examination... I became an atheist.
@PhoenixMarco5
8 жыл бұрын
Good for you. My belief in God got even stronger after I read Dawkins. I don't see how Christian can be convinced by the new atheists of all people, unless there was not much convincing to do in the first place.
@doctornov7
11 жыл бұрын
Give your evidence/arguments. I have five
@jfrontier1
11 жыл бұрын
What evidence do you believe you would require to show you in God's existence. Or is there any? After all, Jesus walked on the earth and did miraculous things (even rising from the dead) and yet many people still did not believe Him. I suggest that many people (like you) would not believe in God even if He would show Himself to you directly. The bad weak and pathetic arguments against God are a defeater belief for you and the silly YT atheists. The real stories are from the atheists.
@roberttompkins6489
3 жыл бұрын
Hitchens would have mopped the floor with this guy.
@No_BS_policy
2 жыл бұрын
Bullcrap. Hitchens did not have any substance. Just pure rhetoric.
@ob4161
2 жыл бұрын
In terms of rhetoric, sure. In terms of philosophical content, not a chance.
@roberttompkins6489
2 жыл бұрын
@@ob4161If you think Swinburne's view are philosophically grounded--you are sadly misinformed
@ob4161
2 жыл бұрын
@@roberttompkins6489 I may be misinformed about many things, but not this. Let's not forget that Swinburne (unlike Hitchens) is an actual academic philosopher (with impressive qualifications) who has published dozens of books in the field which contain philosophical arguments for his views that are taken seriously and discussed by contemporary analytic philosophers. Hitchens' books (e.g. God is not Great) are polemical diatribes full of non-sequiturs, historical errors, and philosophical incompetence. If you genuinely, truly, honestly think that Hitchens would have "mopped the floor" with Swinburne, you're off your rocker.
@roberttompkins6489
2 жыл бұрын
@@ob4161 The vast majority of academic philosphers disagree with his extreme, unreasoned positions. Maybe they are all wrong? I doubt it. More likely, maybe just him and you. And don't sell Hitchns short--he is often cited by many as one of the top public intellectuals of our time--not Swinburne.
@jkovert
11 жыл бұрын
O YEAH? WELL IF GOD CREATED EVERYTHING, WHO CREATED GOD???
@Serenity5460
4 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂 you must be at the beginning of your philosophical journey to ask that question. Go look it up. William lane Craig.
@gabepearson6104
3 жыл бұрын
Learn the notion of necessary being
@jkovert
3 жыл бұрын
@@gabepearson6104 MUH BEING
@nonyabuzness6457
11 жыл бұрын
We need proof...don't just talk out your ass. But really, no need. You used the word 'root.' That is incorrect. For the 2500 yr ago thoughts (which I will accept, for argument's sake) to be related to Darwin...he would have had to be exposed to the info. Because he clearly came up with it himself, it does not have "Roots" anywhere. Just the same thinking...but not related or disseminated.
@IchFickDeineExistenz
11 жыл бұрын
well, no, sir there are no arguments in favor of god
@mouadmazari5652
11 жыл бұрын
universe came from nothing , and god was the reason.
@IchFickDeineExistenz
11 жыл бұрын
there are hundreds of arguments against god and NOT A SINGLE ONE in favor of god. there is no god and this is a fact. an absolute fact, you get it? it is undeniably there is nothing i am more certain of. no god. not a single one :)
@Drweavil
11 жыл бұрын
What evidence? There never has been even the slightest piece of evidence to back up the fantastical claim of "there is a god" so even something would make the plaintive bleatings of the sheep (how appropriate) a tiny bit less derisable. It seems a character called jesus did exist, but for you and others to make such fantastic claims about him would, imo, require fantastic evidence. Where is it? And do yourself a favour, don't trot out "the bible" as proof, it's not and never will be.
Пікірлер: 125