"Why God Exists"

[Bikewer]

The title of a recent lecture at our university, with the subtitle, "Atheism refuted."

Delivered by a retired Oxford philosophy professor named Richard Swineburne. I didn't get to attend the lecture (we were busy locking up a bike thief) but the student paper did a nice write-up.

"I'm going to persuade you in 45 minutes why God exists." said the fellow.

Swineburne (according to the article) put forth three key points:

1. God is omnipotent, but "only has the power to do things that are logically possible." God cannot, for instance, send humanity hundreds of years backwards in time.

2. God is omniscient and perfectly free, unlike humanity, which lacks complete freedom due to influences lilke genes and the environment.

3. Swineburne defined God as perfectly good and incapable of evil.

Pretty thin beer....

All of these things are, at best, assertions or assumptions about the characteristics of God. They are not testable or provable in any way. Point one appears to be a contradiction; how can we have omnipotence and yet be limited? Is God constrained by the laws of physics? If so, why invoke God?

Point three would require a definition of evil, of course.

Swineburne also, rather remarkably, appeals to simplicity. He asserts that God is the simplest answer for the presence of the universe.
Odd, since atheists usually appeal to simplicity as well, pointing out that a simple, structureless "void" with the energetic potential to spawn universes due to a singularity is a lot "simpler" than an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, fully actualized perfect being like God.

If this is the best that Oxford can offer...

Swineburne does have a book of the same title, available for only 41.95. Perhaps he goes into things more thoroughly. On the basis of the above, it's unlikely I'd be convinced.

 

[jimmygun]

Actually god is the simplest answer for the problems of this world... no studying to do, no learning, no long mathematical equations, no theories to discuss, no searching for facts, no researching material, no proofs needed, no arguing about it and best of all...no thinking!

What could be easier?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Actually god is the simplest answer for the problems of this world... no studying to do, no learning, no long mathematical equations, no theories to discuss, no searching for facts, no researching material, no proofs needed, no arguing about it and best of all...no thinking!

What could be easier?

Probably denying that any religious scholarship exists, and denying that religious people haven't studied science because of their search for their God.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah, what could be simpler than waking up and tending crops in the field for your liege? And hundreds of years of ignorance?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yeah, what could be simpler than waking up and tending crops in the field for your liege? And hundreds of years of ignorance?

I don't get it.

 

[Yahweh]

Swineburne also, rather remarkably, appeals to simplicity. He asserts that God is the simplest answer for the presence of the universe.

Wow, now that's intellectually dishonest.

[/cynicism]

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Actually god is the simplest answer for the problems of this world... no studying to do, no learning, no long mathematical equations, no theories to discuss, no searching for facts, no researching material, no proofs needed, no arguing about it and best of all...no thinking!

What could be easier?

Yeah it is the simplest answer....unless we take the evidence into account.

 

[Yahweh]

"All truth is simple." Is that not doubly a lie? -Nietzsche

Well, partially right. Truth is simple. Simplicity, however, doesnt always translate into truth.



"To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural designer is to explain exactly nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer."- Richard Dawkins

Well, check out Can God Explain Anything? and see for yourself.



Oh, I think I mentioned intellectual dishonesty in my last post. Here is an essay called Who Created God?. It was written for Christians to use to refute atheist questions (see all the essays here). Here is the explanation:

First the author says "eternal beings dont need a creator". That's nothing but obscuring semantics and trying to create the illusion of an argument. Batter up to the plate, first pitch... strike!

Richard Dawkins and B. C. Johnson will not accept it, but the answer to the question, "If God created the universe, then who created God?", is "Nobody. God is not created. God has always existed. God will always exist." God Himself has clearly stated the answer. "I am the LORD, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me, that they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting that there is none besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other; I form the light and create the darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things" (Isaiah 45:5-7). "There is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me" (Isaiah 45:21). "To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal and compare Me, that we should be alike?" (Isaiah 46:5). "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last" (Revelation 1:11).

A swing and a miss, second strike.

It also uses the "We arent capable of truely understanding anything more complex than ourselves, so naturally we couldnt expect to understand God". Swing, ohhh, too slow... strike 3.

Better luck next time.


(If this post comes off as much more cynical than usual, I'm in a bit of a pissy mood right now. I became inondated with dozens of things that needed tending to today. No need to detail, just a bit edgy...)

 

[lifegazer]

3. Swineburne defined God as perfectly good and incapable of evil.

God = omnipresent = God is all things = God is (even in ignorance of his/her divinity) the good, the bad and the indifferent that is exhibited anywhere within existence. For no other exists.

These are definitions of God and don't deal with any arguments for God's existence. Where are those?

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: "Why God Exists"

God = omnipresent = God is all things = God is (even in ignorance of his/her divinity) the good, the bad and the indifferent that is exhibited anywhere within existence. For no other exists.

Note the bold phrase and compare to your next sentence.

These are definitions of God and don't deal with any arguments for God's existence. Where are those?

If you say "no other exists" then you are saying this one does, making your last statement false.

Of course, I could be just trying too hard to make sense out of your gibberish.

 

[jimmygun]

TaiChi...it is obvious to me that if science has been studied it has been ignored. It is also obvious that there is no more need to study if you accept that god did it. When the common man takes up religion it is because he is too lazy to think for himself. He goes to the place where all the answers are all ready for him. No need to study calculus, no need to get a phd in physics, no need to think, just eat the spoon fed dogma from...(place your religion here)'

Dialectic...I would love to see some of this evidence you speak of.

 

[lifegazer]

Note the bold phrase and compare to your next sentence.

If you say "no other exists" then you are saying this one does, making your last statement false.

Of course, I could be just trying too hard to make sense out of your gibberish.

Big mouths in Texas too. But little to say.
The term "no other exists" was used in relation to an omnipresent God. I.e., if an omnipresent God exists, then "no other exists" by default. But no proof has been presented to show that an omnipresent God does exist - not in this thread anyway.
Try engaging your brain next time Tex. And ask your mamma about good manners.

 

[T'ai Chi]

When the common man takes up religion it is because he is too lazy to think for himself. He goes to the place where all the answers are all ready for him. No need to study calculus, no need to get a phd in physics, no need to think, just eat the spoon fed dogma from...(place your religion here)'

I'm sure Newton, Pascal, and tons of historical and modern religious scientists would disagree with that.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jimmygun
When the common man takes up religion it is because he is too lazy to think for himself. He goes to the place where all the answers are all ready for him. No need to study calculus, no need to get a phd in physics, no need to think, just eat the spoon fed dogma from...(place your religion here)'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure Newton, Pascal, and tons of historical and modern religious scientists would disagree with that.

I'm sure they would too..

Did I miss the part where jimmygun stated that " no need " equates to " will not " ..?

Do you have reason to believe that Pascal or Newton had no problem reconciling their religious beliefs with their scientific endeavors?