I applaud and very much support the first half of this talk. I agree entirely with his analysis of necessity. However, I find his arguments against God's necessity very weak indeed, and I don't think he's considered sufficiently such arguments as those of Pruss or Leftow with regard to unrealized possibility, which needs a grounding in the powers of a necessary being.
Coppleston said that the cosmological argument that it can be reduced to the proposition: "If there exists a contingent being then, necessarily, there exists a Necessary Being." Call this proposition P. Coppleston said that P is a necessary proposition even though it is synthetic rather than analytic since "A contingent being exists" is not an a priori proposition but something that must be discovered by experience. I wonder what Swinburne would say about this. Probably he would say that the proposition, "No contingent being exists," is metaphysically possible and so P cannot be metaphysically necessary. Still, it would have been a better question than the irrlevant, "What about the evidence for fine tuning?" that someone from Biola asked.
I've been pointing out for quite some time the same contradiction Swinburne points to in the QnA. If God has an unauthored particular intrinsic nature, he could not exist by metaphysical necessity, as it is perfectly conceivable that some counterpart being existed with a slightly different nature at some possible world. That God would have the preference that the world be just as it is, rather than some other way, is simply a brute fact. At some possible world his preferences could be otherwise.. He didn't create himself, he is not responsible for his nature being such that it is, and he is eternally bound by that nature. We won a 1/∞ lottery getting just the right God, just the right initial conditions for the creation of a world we could inhabit.
God is just a personification of human desires and fears, a symbolic character in the dramas we create about ourselves and a psychological coping mechanism. It affects nothing in the universe outside the human mind.
@@AhmadEdinHodzic I have no.problem acknowledging gods or anything else if the evidence is there. . I'm not driven by stubborn egotism as religious fanatics are. If there is an omnipotent god who wants me to believe in him, he could show himself in an unmistakable way. He could levitate the pencil on my table for example. Like all charlatans, high priests say that the magic won't show itself to unbelievers.
@@pwnUgood noone is forcing you to believe, it is for your own good. I agree there are some fanatics out there that twist the Elohs ways. When true believers pray they pray not for Eloh but for themselves. Cause Eloh is not outside, part of his soul is in us. That’s why it made Hell cause it didn’t want to be evil. Eloh cannot destroy a part of himself therefore he casts that part into fire to burn forever. You need to cast your evil thoughts into fire and purify your mind for your mind shapes your soul, not everything is lost. When was the last time you cried?
@@pwnUgood one more thing Eloh is a personal god and only one. Your relationship with that is truly inside you and everywhere around , it needs to be personal not influenced by people outside you. Emotions you feel are what you are, for life is a manifestation of emotion. You can say it is a chemical thing but who is feeling them? 🙂
Does anybody have anything (handouts, transcript, etc...) that will help with comprehending this? I have read some of Swinburne's books and they are excellent, but I am not following this at all.
The lecture is referring to the sleeping god Azathoth, Lord of All Things ! Our universe/reality is Azathoth's dream and when he wakens our universe will cease to exist.
The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Richard is mistaken when he says that the Psalmist is wrong. The Psalmist is speaking God's Words when he writes that a fool denies God.
Swinburne did not say that the Psalmist was wrong. He said the fool or atheist was wrong or mistaken, not because the sentence “God does not exist” entails a contradiction, but because it is actually false.
What is the true he hides according to our pre-conceived answers? I couldn't follow this lecture with so much meta-physico thing. Right, he invented a game, its rules, and make a demonstration. It would be so easy first to say what is behind the concept of "god". "One" is the best representation of the concept of god. Even atheist believe in this number and concept, since 0 don't exist.
It seriously baffles me how any Christian, or anybody at all could hold Swinburne's position. First of all, his answer to "aren't we just lucky that God exists" was nonsensical and seriously beat around the bush. The point wasn't just that we're lucky, it's that God needs some sort of explanation. Answering the question of why God exists at all seems impossible on his view. He just seems to be a brute fact and if he was, why not simply call the universe a brute fact and be an atheist? Second of all, there seems to be a good Leibnizian response to his critique. First, let's grant a common Leibnizian assumption that a world of only contingent objects is impossible. If it is possible for any collection of contingent objects to be actualized then there must be a necessary object to make that possible, seeing as it must be outside of the contingent set in order to actualize it. If the Leibnizian can argue that said object must be God, then we can, from examining contingent objects and finding that they need an explanation assume the necessity of God. Perhaps the non-existence of God doesn't entail a contradiction, but this line of reasoning seems to be fairly common in modern theistic circles and Swinburne quote frankly seems to ignore it.
@Jon Dewey But if we accept brute facts as an explanation then ANYTHING can be a brute fact because the principle of sufficient reason wouldn't be true. That means that if we accept that brute facts can happen, then the universe coming into existence can be a brute fact too. It can just happen, for no reason at all.
@Jon Dewey "Things of a certain class need no explanation =/= all things of every class need no explanation. " Unless you can explain on what grounds you can deny a PSR for a specific class other than "I can't find or think of an explanation" then this is simply not true. Once you deny a general PSR then it no longer follows that everything needs an explanation and you need explain to precisely why something doesn't need an explanation and also explain why something DOES. I have yet to hear of any sensible reason to assume why something is a brute fact other than something like it being the end of the explanatory chain of existence or claiming (with much silliness in my opinion) that necessary truths don't need an explanation. On the other hand, I am not aware of a single reason to reject why something can be a brute fact other than it falling under the rules of a PSR. What I don't think you realize is when you accept that something can exist or happen for no reason at all, even if it can have a cause that doesn't mean that it does. Causal arguments don't even make sense without PSR since they depend on it. If something can happen without explanation then it can certainly happen without cause. The entire reason we assume that the very beginning of the universe needs a cause is because it's not self-explanatory, not infinite in the past, and doesn't exist by necessity. Similarly, an atheist can respond to any fine-tuning arguments by saying that there is an even wider potential for a multiverse scenario beyond our wildest dreams if universes can simply happen. As unlikely as it is, if a universe can simply be a brute fact then odds are meaningless at that point. The existence of brute facts would be utterly devastating to a case for theism. That being said it's also devastating to intellectual integrity. In the battle of worldviews, the best worldview is the one that explains the most the best. An appeal to brute facts is essentially tantamount to saying that at the core of your worldview is a explanatory dumpster fire.
@@Returnality I just stumbled upon your comment and wanted to appreciate your name/channel (returnality) as it pretty much resembles the word (revert) that we Muslims call any non-Muslim who comes (back) to his true intrinsic Fitrah (meaning the intrinsic belief in God). So returnality to God is Fitrah (revertedness to God). Speaking of God, you're asking why the universe can't be a brute fact, it could just be! (making it the necessary being by definition), the answer might be in that the universe is a set of contingent things, which is susceptible to addition and subtraction (changeable in quantity and form). It can't be the necessary being by virtue of its nature. Also, you can't say that the universe cannot not be.. As there obviously could have been nothing instead of anything. So it's contingent as a whole. Another note, the universe had a beginning, so that pretty much dissolve its necessity, rendering it a factual and logical contingency.
Swinburne agrees that the existence of the universe could be a brute fact with no explanation. But he thinks this is actually false. The best explanation of why a universe (with certain features) exists is, according to him, that God created it for particular purposes. We can argue against a view without saying it is necessarily false.
Darn it. I have so much work to do, and now I have another lecture I must watch. This awesome philosophers are taking up so much of my time.
I applaud and very much support the first half of this talk. I agree entirely with his analysis of necessity. However, I find his arguments against God's necessity very weak indeed, and I don't think he's considered sufficiently such arguments as those of Pruss or Leftow with regard to unrealized possibility, which needs a grounding in the powers of a necessary being.
Thanks. in Russia you love and respect your work
Coppleston said that the cosmological argument that it can be reduced to the proposition: "If there exists a contingent being then, necessarily, there exists a Necessary Being." Call this proposition P. Coppleston said that P is a necessary proposition even though it is synthetic rather than analytic since "A contingent being exists" is not an a priori proposition but something that must be discovered by experience. I wonder what Swinburne would say about this. Probably he would say that the proposition, "No contingent being exists," is metaphysically possible and so P cannot be metaphysically necessary. Still, it would have been a better question than the irrlevant, "What about the evidence for fine tuning?" that someone from Biola asked.
Excellent!
thanks!
Has anyone got a copy of the handout that they could possibly upload somewhere, please?
I've been pointing out for quite some time the same contradiction Swinburne points to in the QnA. If God has an unauthored particular intrinsic nature, he could not exist by metaphysical necessity, as it is perfectly conceivable that some counterpart being existed with a slightly different nature at some possible world. That God would have the preference that the world be just as it is, rather than some other way, is simply a brute fact. At some possible world his preferences could be otherwise.. He didn't create himself, he is not responsible for his nature being such that it is, and he is eternally bound by that nature. We won a 1/∞ lottery getting just the right God, just the right initial conditions for the creation of a world we could inhabit.
God is just a personification of human desires and fears, a symbolic character in the dramas we create about ourselves and a psychological coping mechanism. It affects nothing in the universe outside the human mind.
Sure but if you saw god you would still not believe. “Why is that?”
@@AhmadEdinHodzic I have no.problem acknowledging gods or anything else if the evidence is there. . I'm not driven by stubborn egotism as religious fanatics are. If there is an omnipotent god who wants me to believe in him, he could show himself in an unmistakable way. He could levitate the pencil on my table for example. Like all charlatans, high priests say that the magic won't show itself to unbelievers.
@@pwnUgood noone is forcing you to believe, it is for your own good. I agree there are some fanatics out there that twist the Elohs ways. When true believers pray they pray not for Eloh but for themselves. Cause Eloh is not outside, part of his soul is in us. That’s why it made Hell cause it didn’t want to be evil. Eloh cannot destroy a part of himself therefore he casts that part into fire to burn forever. You need to cast your evil thoughts into fire and purify your mind for your mind shapes your soul, not everything is lost. When was the last time you cried?
@@pwnUgood one more thing Eloh is a personal god and only one. Your relationship with that is truly inside you and everywhere around , it needs to be personal not influenced by people outside you. Emotions you feel are what you are, for life is a manifestation of emotion. You can say it is a chemical thing but who is feeling them? 🙂
@@pwnUgood Have a nice day! I won’t bother you anymore unless you decide that you want to get bothered.
Too much wittgenstein in his tea.
Does anybody have anything (handouts, transcript, etc...) that will help with comprehending this? I have read some of Swinburne's books and they are excellent, but I am not following this at all.
Have you read his Coherence of Theism?
+Samuel Saenz No I have not. Would this help?
thanks
The lecture is referring to the sleeping god Azathoth, Lord of All Things ! Our universe/reality is Azathoth's dream and when he wakens our universe will cease to exist.
Lovecraft literally just took everything Berkley said about God and make it evil.
This was incredibly difficult to follow!
The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Richard is mistaken when he says that the Psalmist is wrong. The Psalmist is speaking God's Words when he writes that a fool denies God.
The Psalmist had PTSD. He was unwell, and not just a little.
Swinburne did not say that the Psalmist was wrong. He said the fool or atheist was wrong or mistaken, not because the sentence “God does not exist” entails a contradiction, but because it is actually false.
@@professor_earn Ah, so you are one of those who can see god. :-)
What is the true he hides according to our pre-conceived answers? I couldn't follow this lecture with so much meta-physico thing. Right, he invented a game, its rules, and make a demonstration.
It would be so easy first to say what is behind the concept of "god".
"One" is the best representation of the concept of god. Even atheist believe in this number and concept, since 0 don't exist.
It seriously baffles me how any Christian, or anybody at all could hold Swinburne's position. First of all, his answer to "aren't we just lucky that God exists" was nonsensical and seriously beat around the bush. The point wasn't just that we're lucky, it's that God needs some sort of explanation. Answering the question of why God exists at all seems impossible on his view. He just seems to be a brute fact and if he was, why not simply call the universe a brute fact and be an atheist? Second of all, there seems to be a good Leibnizian response to his critique.
First, let's grant a common Leibnizian assumption that a world of only contingent objects is impossible. If it is possible for any collection of contingent objects to be actualized then there must be a necessary object to make that possible, seeing as it must be outside of the contingent set in order to actualize it. If the Leibnizian can argue that said object must be God, then we can, from examining contingent objects and finding that they need an explanation assume the necessity of God. Perhaps the non-existence of God doesn't entail a contradiction, but this line of reasoning seems to be fairly common in modern theistic circles and Swinburne quote frankly seems to ignore it.
Interesting points
@Jon Dewey But if we accept brute facts as an explanation then ANYTHING can be a brute fact because the principle of sufficient reason wouldn't be true. That means that if we accept that brute facts can happen, then the universe coming into existence can be a brute fact too. It can just happen, for no reason at all.
@Jon Dewey "Things of a certain class need no explanation =/= all things of every class need no explanation. "
Unless you can explain on what grounds you can deny a PSR for a specific class other than "I can't find or think of an explanation" then this is simply not true. Once you deny a general PSR then it no longer follows that everything needs an explanation and you need explain to precisely why something doesn't need an explanation and also explain why something DOES. I have yet to hear of any sensible reason to assume why something is a brute fact other than something like it being the end of the explanatory chain of existence or claiming (with much silliness in my opinion) that necessary truths don't need an explanation. On the other hand, I am not aware of a single reason to reject why something can be a brute fact other than it falling under the rules of a PSR.
What I don't think you realize is when you accept that something can exist or happen for no reason at all, even if it can have a cause that doesn't mean that it does. Causal arguments don't even make sense without PSR since they depend on it. If something can happen without explanation then it can certainly happen without cause. The entire reason we assume that the very beginning of the universe needs a cause is because it's not self-explanatory, not infinite in the past, and doesn't exist by necessity. Similarly, an atheist can respond to any fine-tuning arguments by saying that there is an even wider potential for a multiverse scenario beyond our wildest dreams if universes can simply happen. As unlikely as it is, if a universe can simply be a brute fact then odds are meaningless at that point.
The existence of brute facts would be utterly devastating to a case for theism. That being said it's also devastating to intellectual integrity. In the battle of worldviews, the best worldview is the one that explains the most the best. An appeal to brute facts is essentially tantamount to saying that at the core of your worldview is a explanatory dumpster fire.
@@Returnality I just stumbled upon your comment and wanted to appreciate your name/channel (returnality) as it pretty much resembles the word (revert) that we Muslims call any non-Muslim who comes (back) to his true intrinsic Fitrah (meaning the intrinsic belief in God). So returnality to God is Fitrah (revertedness to God).
Speaking of God, you're asking why the universe can't be a brute fact, it could just be! (making it the necessary being by definition), the answer might be in that the universe is a set of contingent things, which is susceptible to addition and subtraction (changeable in quantity and form). It can't be the necessary being by virtue of its nature. Also, you can't say that the universe cannot not be.. As there obviously could have been nothing instead of anything. So it's contingent as a whole.
Another note, the universe had a beginning, so that pretty much dissolve its necessity, rendering it a factual and logical contingency.
Swinburne agrees that the existence of the universe could be a brute fact with no explanation. But he thinks this is actually false. The best explanation of why a universe (with certain features) exists is, according to him, that God created it for particular purposes. We can argue against a view without saying it is necessarily false.
He's got scoliosis . You can tell by the way stands ...