Part Two: Swinburne vs Dawkins on the Mystery of Existence | Reasonable Faith Podcast
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2023
- Dr. Craig evaluates an intense exchange between Richard Dawkins and Richard Swinburne as they discussed the mystery of existence.
For more resources visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
Thanks to Prof. Swinburne and Dr. Craig. God bless ❤❤❤
Such a shame to see Dawkins so badly out of his depth and going round and round in circles.
He is apparently seen walking around Oxford gardens, muttering to himself. A sad figure.
I once joked that occasionally, when he's cutting the veg for his salad, an apparition appears in a brilliant light at the corner of his eye and he screams "go away!" His wife calls down "Who you talking to, dear?" And he replies "No, one, darling. No one."
This notion of asserting God must be complex (just because he's omnipotent and omniscient) is unsubstantiated and has just become rhetorical - something he states dogmatically usually to laymen who can't offer rebuttals.
@@thecloudtherapist Nonsense. A creator of all things would have to be complex. How would it make creation decisions? On the other hand, unguided natural processes, which are complex *in the long run,* are less so at any given point.
*"(just because he's omnipotent and omniscient)"* No big deal, right? Just, y'know, omnipotent and omniscient. 🤔
More nonsense. He is not in the field of philosophy, particularly the kind that attempts to justify ancient superstitions. He deals in reality.
You're making the same mistake as Dawkins: you're confusing the complexity of God's thoughts and actions with the complexity of God himself. If God is an unembodied mind, then he is not made out of any parts, and if he is not made out of any parts, then there is no way that God can be improbable - you can't break God up into pieces and randomly rearrange them in the hope that they just happen by chance to assemble in a "God shaped" way. That is precisely what Dawkins argues in The God Delusion, that God is MORE IMPROBABLE than the appearance of design in the universe, because he is "complex".
Please tell me: how does God having complex THOUGHTS, and being capable of complex EFFECTS make God "statistically improbable" (Dawkins own words)?@@chikkipop
@@Birdieupon The mental gymnastics of believers continues to astonish me. Proposing an entity - without the slightest evidence for it - by describing what it *COULD* be - which is nothing we have ever known to exist in any other way, and which violates our understanding of what a "mind" is - in that all minds we know of are necessarily *embodied* - is nothing more than mental masturbation.
*"IF god is"* this or that or the other gets us nowhere, unless there is good cause to suppose we have an entity we're trying to understand in the first place. Mere speculation about any phenomenon must take into account whether or not there is reason to suppose we have anything more than a human invention, created in order to answer a mystery. It's like trying to get at what gives Superman his powers.
Dawkins is not simply "mistaken", he's well aware that he is arguing nonsense but he simply despises God so much that he would rather look like a buffoon and lose any credibility he had then bow to the creator. It's pride and no amount of proof and sense will change him. He, Hitchens, Krause, Harris and others just like them, all know they are arguing nonsense but they dig in their heels. It's a serious reminder of what the hardening of the heart will do to a person. Just like Pharaoh.
Poor Dawkins. Clearly outgunned by Swinburne.
Explain how he was outgunned.
Awesome!
To me it doesn't matter how complex God is. If He is complex He is infinitely complex. If He is 'simple' He is infinitely simple. And by the sounds of it, I think Craig might suggest the God is both simple and complex simultaneously. And I wouldn't argue with that.
How silly. But this is what happens when you attempt to defend an ancient superstition.
@@chikkipopYou've suddenly sprung to life on this topic which was aired five months ago, claiming that Christianity is an ancient superstition. But again, you know it isn't, it's the ONLY world religion for which there is evidence, not proof, evidence, and there's a huge difference between the two. So, with that in mind, please present to me some evidence to suggest that the universe created itself out of nothing. I don't need proof, I just need evidence that such a supernatural event could occur. Has the universe always existed? Let's see the evidence. Are there multiple universes? Let's see the evidence. Over to you.
@@KendalSmithy You folks are *SO* funny!! We reject a claim about a magical invisible father figure on the grounds that it has every indication of being a common superstition from centuries ago, in addition to which there is NO evidence whatsoever which would persuade a reasonable person to conclude otherwise, and what do you guys do?!
You demand that *WE* explain the entirety of existence, because anything less and your magical claim is somehow substantiated!!
Sorry, but that's not how it works. Now, if this is difficult for you, let me try a simple example and see if that works:
There is a murder in our neighborhood, and you claim a *demon* did it. I reject your claim due to your failure to show demons even exist, along with the absence of any evidence in this particular case. YOU then ask me who DID commit the murder, if not your demon, and I say I have no idea. "Aha! You don't know, do you?!" is your reply.
Must be a demon then. 😏
We don't yet understand every natural process, but we've come a long way, and in all of our progress there has not been ONE indication of gods.
I have *"suddenly sprung to life on this topic which was aired five months ago"!* Lions and tigers and bears, Oh No!
"Divine simplicity" is a philosophical concept within classical theism, which, as far as I can tell, cannot be directly derived from the Bible. My question is what the theological loss is if God is not simple. There has been a lot of ink spilled regarding God's simplicity, and people being labeled heretics for denying it, so people clearly think it is vitally important to affirm the doctrine for some reason which eludes me.
I agree, it seems a bit of a strange topic to focus so heavily on, although I do certainly agree with it. God is a Being with certain attributes which altogether make Him immensely powerful, yet those attributes are all simple. I do not believe that this is a vital doctrine in any way, like you point out, but that doesn't make it any more true.
Anyhow, all this dialogue about Divine Simplicity makes me wonder what a complex divine being would look like.
@@HomoSimpson928 There is no reason to suppose gods exist, so it's indeed a very strange topic.
@chikkipop Since you're writing "gods" in plural, may I assume you're referring to polytheism as a worldview, or are you referring to the type of theism discussed in this video, simply monotheism? If it's the former, I agree entirely with you. The ancient polythestic belief systems like roman and greek mythology, as well as today's hinduism and so forth have no philisophical or otherwise argumentative grounds. If you're referring to monotheism, I find your remark radical, especially because you're commenting on a video who's channel has a plethora of material supporting it and because you do not seem to support your claim with anything.
@@HomoSimpson928 I commented about "gods" because there is no evidence for any of them. I have no concern about "polytheism" or any other theism.
*"I find your remark radical, especially because you're commenting on a video who's channel has a plethora of material supporting it and because you do not seem to support your claim with anything."*
Speaking of *radical* remarks, this is nonsense! Please provide ANY evidence for gods, whether from this channel or elsewhere. I don't need to support my claim; YOU need to demonstrate why it's mistaken, since you claim the existence of something for which I have seen no evidence, and I strongly suspect you haven't either. Prove otherwise.
@@chikkipopI'm sorry, I believe we have different ways of using the word Evidence. The way I see it, evidence is argumentative material that can be used to support an assertion. Evidence can be physical objects as well as philosophical constructs.
Pertaining to our discussion, I will gladly admit that there is evidence contrary to my conclusion; that is, I believe there is evidence for atheism, for example the problem of evil. I find it a powerful argument, as is shown by its persistent popularity among atheists. Needless to say, I do not find it persuasive enough, but I will not go around saying atheism as no evidence, because it clearly does have.
On the other hand, I find it radical indeed to assert that theism has no evidence. There are a handful of arguments that dr. Craig uses, including on this channel. We have the cosmological argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument and the resurrection argument just to name a few. I have no problem with people saying they don't find the cumulative case for theism persuasive, as I feel the same for atheism, but to assert that there is no evidence either way is simply disrespectful for the great philosophical discourse and debate, that is the existence of God.
The bible says the god of this world has blinded this eye that they may not see. Dawkins keeps on moving in circles even when truth is clear. He is afraid of the light.
What an awful belief you have! It permits you to decide things about others even without the slightest evidence. But of course, you don't need evidence, because if that was a requirement, you would never have embraced your ancient superstition. I wish people like you would grow up and make positive contributions to our world instead of being mired in nonsense and criticizing people who rightly fight against it.
Not that I think that there's anything wrong with inductive arguments but it seems to me that Dawkins is committed to an understanding of God based on naturalistic observations. The longer one goes down that route the harder it will be to arrive at an adequate theology.
I agree but lets not forget that a lot of Thomas Aquinas proofs are based on naturalistic observations from which he deduces the existence of god (for example the argument from movement.)
There IS no "an adequate theology".
*"The study of theology as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principals; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and admits no conclusions."* -- Thomas Paine
This is embarrassing, Dawkins is so ill-equipped to be debating Swinburne.
Dawkins has too much to lose by admitting that God could or does exist; his career and fame would be gone forever. That's a VERY simple explanation!
The same could be said for craig
aren't both retired?
💰 is in the 🏦
no problem about fame
Well, to be fair. Dawkins has an entire separate career in biology.
Do really believe that he is in the religious closet 😂😂😂
@@Lolux1701 That's not what he's famous for though, is it. I doubt he's short of cash, but as Craig pointed out, his arguments have been refuted well and truly by many, but he continues to repeat them over and over again, so there has to be a reason for that. After all, we all believe in reason, don't we?
God exists, of course, and everyone, including Richard Dawkins, knows it.
Especially Dawkins 😄
What possible evidence have you got to come to that conclusion.......... the mind boggles!!
And, of course, you're going to present your evidence, and of course you're going to win a Nobel Prize for your astounding achievement that everyone already "knows" but no one has EVER shown evidence for. You guys are SO funny!
@@chikkipop It's obvious. The "simple" cell alone is evidence of God. People reject the conclusion because it's unacceptable.
@@terminat1 If something was a fact, why would it be "unacceptable" to anyone who actually loves learning things?!
Of course, the cell is not at all evidence for a "god," since a more likely explanation is available which is supported by evidence. Living things are a result of natural processes, and we have *observed* the power of nature to design. No intelligence is needed in the process, nor is there any sign of such intelligence anywhere.
Remember to explain why something which is a "fact" is unacceptable to some people; you may turn out to be describing yourself.
What does Dr. Craig mean by "simple" when he says that God is simple. He knows that God has no physical parts because God is a spirit. But Dr. Craig rejects divine simplify in the Thomistic sense. That's because St. Thomas Aquinas believes God has no parts in any sense of the word "parts." When Thomas says God is all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and so forth, those words stand the same referent. They stand for God. So for Thomas, the differences among God's power, his Goodness, his mercy, and more are only conceptual. But we need to distinguish among those properties because we think analytically.
Dr. Craig says God is simply. But he's not talking about divine simplicity in the Thomistic, Augustinian, and Boethian sense. St. Augustine, Boethius, and St. Thomas would tell you that anyone or anything with parts needs a cause that explain why they compose a whole.
In fact, potentials are metaphysical parts. Dr. Craig believes that though God is temporal now, he was timeless without time. That implies that God has or had potential to go from being timeless to being themporal. If he did Gog from being timeless to being temporal, he needed a cause and that he's not absolutely simple. So he wouldn't God in the classical theist's sense of the word "God."
That's why Fr. Brian Davies says Dr. Craig, Professor Swinburne, Dr. Alvin Plantinga, and others are theistic personalists instead of classical theists. It's as though theistic personalists conceive of a human person with infinite power, infinite goodness, infinite knowledge. . .For classical theists, God is the ultimate reality. But theistic personalism suggests that he's superhuman. And. there's a major difference between Superman and the Supreme Being.
If St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and Boethius are right, Dr. Crag is a nonclassical theist. In fact, his theistic personalism even suggests a vicious infinite regression of causes.
By "simple," Dr. Craig indeed means that God is not composed of any parts. This includes not just physical parts, but also abstract parts. As an anti-realist regarding abstract objects, Dr. Craig rejects the existence of putative abstract objects like properties. However, under a neutralist theory of reference, one can use property language in true statements without committing oneself to their existence.
So, Dr. Craig, like the Thomist, denies that God has any proper parts, either physical or metaphysical. The neutralist can refer to "potentials" in true sentences about God without thereby committing himself to potentials as metaphysical parts. This is because the neutralist is not beholden to a neo-Quinean criterion of ontological commitment, where quantifying over putative abstract objects in true sentences commits one to the existence of such objects.
In addition to the claim that God doesn't have any parts, the Thomist makes several much stronger claims that Dr. Craig finds completely untenable. You noted one of them - God's supposedly being atemporal. However, if it's impossible for God to stand in temporal relations, then it is likewise impossible for God to have gone from "not having created" to "having created" the universe... quite an unwelcome theological conclusion. You claimed that God's transition from being timeless to standing in temporal relations would require a cause, presumably an external one. But why would that be? If God is the one causing the universe, then *he* is the one creating the temporal relation, not some abstract object called a "potential."
Sadly, the account you give of so-called "theistic personalists" is such a mischaracterization that one wonders whether you're familiar with the work of the scholars you listed. No, they do not conceive of God like a human person with its attributes to an infinite degree. That gets the account backwards. Humans can be said to bear the image of God *because* God is the sole ultimate reality capable of making creatures which possess attributes similar to his own, albeit contingently and to a finite degree. On the Thomistic view, God shares no attributes with humanity in any sense, nor can any positive attribution be made of him, which leaves one in pure agnosticism. Even the doctrine of analogy is futile, since analogies are only meaningful if one knows the point of connection between the analog and that which is analogized. As a result, Thomism evacuates the doctrine of the image of God of any meaningful content.
Your comment about theistic personalism leading to an infinite regress of causes was unexplained. What do you mean by that? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Sadly, it seems clear to me Dr. Craig's theism implies that God has metaphysical parts, since Dr. Craig distinguishes between God's essence and His existence. If there's an actual difference between them, God is metaphysically composed of them. In fact, in the video linked to this post, Dr. Craig says he finds Thomistic divine simplicity unintelligible because it tells us that God's essence is His existence. Dr. Craig understands his theism partly because he thinks there's an actual difference between God's essence and His existence rather than a merely conceptual one.
th-cam.com/video/xU2WLZ9mO8o/w-d-xo.html
So suppose that since God is composed of His existence and His essence, He needs a cause. Then he's a contingent being who might fail to exist or who might have failed to exist. In that case I stand by my opinion that Dr. Craig's theism implies a vicious infinite regression.
In other videos, Dr. Craig seems to agree that atheism could be true. If there's no God, is theism necessarily false or only contingently false? If God exists, and if He's simple in the Thomistic sense, atheism is self-contradictory because it implies that existence as such does not exist. Buy we know that's false. There must be existence as such for anyone or anything else to exist. My computer exist with this post and with yours.
Here's part of what what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says about divine simplicity. From what I can tell, the article's author agrees with me when he writes: " To say that God lacks metaphysical parts is to say inter alia that God is free of matter-form composition, potency-act composition, and existence-essence composition. There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in some sense identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each attribute is identical to every other one. God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience - which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience. . . - which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience - but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has as Augustine puts it in The City of God, XI, 10. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/
Now please read some things some members of the Early Church wrote about divine simplicity.
www.original-sinner.com/10-church-fathers-divine-simplicity/
01:30 "well, yes, so what?" Dawkins in response to an objection that cripples his argument. He doesn't even seem to have followed what just happened. And this man's books sold millions of copies, and he's been an inspiration to atheists worldwide.
Furthermore, let us notice "how can you say this and that?" When confronted with this level of sophistication one just has to bow down. Why bother arguing for your position when you can just say "how can you not agree with me?"
Please explain how his argument is "crippled". Please explain "what just happened". I'm glad Dawkins was influential in helping religions decline, and until you can point out the fundamental flaws in his central contention that there is no evidence for gods, you're in no position to be claiming anything about him. Go for it!
@@chikkipop what just happened is that his notion that a very simple entity cannot be fundamental was crippled.
Also, "there is no evidence of xyz" is a claim, and as a whole lot of atheists love to say, claims aren't evidence.
@@TheRonBerg *"his notion that a very simple entity cannot be fundamental was crippled"* Please do more than simply CLAIM something, because, y'know, claims aren't evidence. Describe what "crippled" his point.
*"Also, "there is no evidence of xyz" is a claim, and as a whole lot of atheists love to say, claims aren't evidence."*
You folks are so funny! You all need so many things explained to you, but since you're committed to a BELIEF, you refuse to learn.
The claim that there is no evidence for a god is...... a claim. The *evidence* supporting that claim is the continued failure of anyone to prove otherwise. Provide evidence for a god. You would be the first.
The claim that there IS evidence for a god is also a claim. The *evidence* supporting that claim is nonexistent, until proven otherwise. It's YOUR burden, not ours.
@@chikkipop what Swinburne reminded him about fundamental physical particles is what crippled his argument. Which he failed to understand. And, either you failed as well, or you didn't even listen.
Now, if you disagree, please do more than simply CLAIM "nu-uh". Because, you know, claims aren't evidence.
No we don't need "so many things explained to [us]", this is the typical projection by atheists/skeptics/agnostics who refuse to be consistent with their logic and/or arguments. See, you claim a "continued failure to prove otherwise", which is not a *fact*, it's your *opinion*, i.e. no evidence (once again). I happen to believe that good arguments and good evidence are out there, and that this "there is no evidence" shtick stems from a refusal to acknowledge it. Yes, people can refuse to acknowledge evidence.
Also, if your BELIEF is that "there is no God", this is also a claim, not evidence. And since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it's YOUR burden to provide evidence for your position - which so far is nonexistent, until proven otherwise.
@@TheRonBerg The nonsense parade continues!
*"Also, if your BELIEF is that "there is no God", this is also a claim, not evidence."*
It's entirely unnecessary to have a belief about the non-existence of something. I simply disregard any claims that something exists, when no one is able to show how they know.
Sorry, but the burden is ALL yours.
As for the *"objection that cripples his argument,"* you have yet to describe it in any way, instead simply claiming the existence of some unidentified argument which Dawkins can't deal with. What is it?
Dawkins needs to retire from public life and stop embarrasing himself.
(shrugs shoulders) You people can always stop giving him attention.
It's not the least bit embarrassing to take a justified position, as he so obviously has to anyone who hasn't swallowed an ancient superstition. What's embarrassing is that we still have to combat nonsense in the 21st century, when people like you ought to know better.
Wow, Dawkins can't really withstand any serious inquiry beyond what those fundamentalist muslim can provide. No wonder he runs from Craig like a feminist runs from responsibility.
Frankly, I fail to understand why Dr. Craig consistently beats a dead horse. Dawkins has made it clear that he doesn't want to engage with him - he even wrote an entire article only devoted to this. Why then continuously try to debunk or engage someone who will not engage back, who won't even look at your critique of his speech, who simply disregards him as a theologian. I will admit though that Dr Craig's critique is compelling, if only Dawkins bothered to listen, and unfortunately, he does not.
I think this sometimes to. I then remember hearing Dawkins on NPR about 15 or more years ago. My faith wasn't strong then and he disturbed me a little bit. I then took it upon myself to study more and found answers to the seemingly smart insights he had. I stumbled upon Craig in a backwards manner. Craig's work help me greatly. Maybe somebody will hear the debate Dawkins had now and stumble upon this video and discover Dr crad's work in a "backwards" manner like I did.
@@rhandley1000it seems that Dawkins's desire to ignore Craig has had the opposite effect. The internet makes it possible to interact with someone's ideas even ig they would prefer you not. I'm glad Craig continues to interact with Dawkins, always insightful.
*"Frankly, I fail to understand why Dr. Craig consistently beats a dead horse"*
Same reason why so many humans talk to video makers directly and ask them questions when those video makers dont care what they say and dont read or respond to people in their comment sections. They don't care, humans are very irrational and they usual do what they want unless they are forced(for example dealing with the police and are forced to stay there regardless of what you want to do).
The first Commandment says: "I am your Lord God, may you have no other gods besides me"! This is in tune with the first part of the Shahada in Islam: "there is no one and nothing worthy of worship except the Only God"! The essence of these foundations of faith is the same, it is the acceptance and testimony of the Only God and at the same time the same God! For Muslims, there is only One God and this is the God of Abraham peace be upon him, this is the God with whom Moses spoke peace be upon him on Mount Sinai and this is the God whom Jesus worshipped peace be upon him kneeling and seasoning his face to the Ground and it was about this God that Muhammad brought the news peace be upon him and the blessing of the Almighty! The Shahada and the First Commandment are also in tune with the words of Jesus peace be upon him: "Worship the Lord God Alone and serve Him Alone," and "The Lord your God, the Lord is One"!
What does One God, the Only God, mean? God in the Messages of the Prophets is the Creator, the Source of All Things, the one who is worshipped and if He is One, then he Alone should be worshipped!
Tell me who said I in the 1st Commandment? Jesus peace be upon him or the Holy Spirit?
In addition to Pleading to the Messiah, peace be upon him and the Holy Spirit, today many are asking and hoping for Saints, illuminated objects, etc.
Worship, prayer, supplication, service, repentance, vow, hope, all these are types of worship and should be directed to the Only God! Otherwise, regardless of who you turn to, be it Idols, Prophets or Saints, you automatically commit an act of worship to these objects, violating the 1st Commandment!
If you ask them, then you hope for them, for those who are Created by God and who are not even able to help themselves and are completely dependent on God!
Jesus peace be upon him prophesied about the Comforter and about the one who will talk about him and will not speak from himself! There is not a single person in History who came with a Revelation from God, announced the future and confirmed the Messiahship of Jesus peace be upon him, except Muhammad peace be upon him and the blessing of Allah! The name of the Prophet may God bless him and Greet him is mentioned in the Gospel and the "Old Testament", in the Song of Songs 5:16 and in the Prophecy about the Spirit of Truth from John 16-13 and the Comforter, where the Greek word "periklitos" corresponds to the word "Ahmad" in the meaning of "praised", it is also said about who will come After the Messiah, peace be upon him and he will talk about the Messiah, peace be upon him! He will announce the future and the Spirit of Truth will come! Interestingly, the Quran itself is called the Spirit and elsewhere Al Furqan or Discernment! About the Future that will announce: The prophecies of the Koran are fulfilled like the capture of Constantinople or the events taking place before the Day of Judgment, it describes scientific phenomena discovered in the 21st century, such as the development of the embryo, the functions of mountains, the extraterrestrial origin of iron, the main theses of the Big Bang theory, etc
Was I the only one who saw the woman in white going to sleep between 21:55 and 22:24?
all that and still no evidence for the existence of any gods...
There's plenty, but one won't acknowledge it with one's eyes and ears closed.
@@terminat1
My eyes and ears are wide open, where is all of this supposed evidence?
@@somerandom3247The universe itself, life, DNA, consciousness, morality, etc., all point to a designer and creator (God). This should be obvious.
That's a disputed claim. Swinburne and other philosophers of religion (including atheists and other non-religious people) have contended that there is some evidence for the existence of God, with cosmological fine tuning being generally regarded as some of the strongest evidence for theism.
You might have a faulty notion of evidence. Evidence is anything that raises the likelihood of a proposition being true.
@@terminat1
How are any of those things evidence of a god?