Richard Swinburne - Alternative Concepts of God?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- Is God, if there is a God, a personal, conscious, all-powerful Supreme Being? Some offer radically different concepts of 'God', exploring novel ideas of what God may be like. They challenge theism - the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - with radically new kinds of gods. Is this 'heresy'? Or enlarging our vision of what the Ultimate can be like?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on alternatives to God: bit.ly/3frhGko
Richard Swinburne is a Fellow of the British Academy. He is Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Swinburne sounds like the headmaster at a boys school in 1920's England.
This is not a video exploring the alternative concepts of god, instead it is this Swinburne rejecting the other concepts.
Interesting, a graduate class in philosophy condensed into 21 minutes
Swinburne needs to play an imperial Moff in a Star Wars movie or show! The guy is simply an amazingly sinister--yet strangely likable--character.
Even if he just lends his voice to an animated show, I'd be happy!
Or he could play some kind of Sith metaphysician (or Darth Vader's personal astrologer). That would be cool, too!
Professor Swinburne is really really intelligent.
Possibly too* intelligent. This was awful to listen to
I should say... If you just wanted to listen to swinburne stammer through his thoughts, while RLK shifted awkwardly in his chair before remembering that this was an interview, then maybe it was a great episode. I forgot I was listening to a closer to truth episode until I would glance at the video
Sounds like walking into a supermarket and trying to choose what kind of potato chips i should buy!
And sometimes the only bag of chips left on the shelf has been squeezed a number of times so all that's left are bits and pieces of the original chips!
You child
But when you arrived home your mom gets mad because she told you to buy fresh potato. Lol
Dear Mr Khune and Mr Swineburn, Thank you Mr Khune for your videocasts. You pose excellent, well thought-out questions which make guests like Mr Swineburn give us explanations of high caliber. My thoughts of God go in all directions. I have a handicapped child hospitalized for life and one time on a train to a neighboring city in Europe, I spied a priest nearby and asked if I might sit opposite him which he accepted. I couldn’t keep it in me for long and when I recounted my back story and the sorry state of my only child and how my daughter was afflicted with an illness no doctor had a cure for, the priest said that God created her---my daughter---to be happy in her own way. He said all of the handicapped people seemed to have an innate happiness. I thanked him but I didn’t have the heart to tell him my kid had threatened suicide more times than I could remember. She’d say things like: “Why did you have a kid like me?” In short, I can’t bring myself to believe that a God would create the unhappiest child I have ever known. She doesn’t have a special happiness. I have lived a very hard drama since she became ill. I don’t say there isn’t a God. No; but I think we invent things we can’t explain and then dress them in clothes we can identify with so as to make life have meaning.
Worthy of watching again and again! Brilliant.
Swinburne is a genius may God bless him
Anything, that takes us away from the crazy American Capitalist God is a huge improvement.
cognito Your life may be shorter than you suppose... Why not try to grow up a little, while you still have a chance?
I've never really contemplated the idea of a "developmental" God. Raises alot of questions to ponder
Anyone able to listen with full attention to this 20 min is already close to God
Richard Swinburne and David Bentley Hart are some of the few religious minds that don't make me cringe into oblivion when i hear them.
to be fair, thoughtful and knowledgeable humans are rare in every single sphere of thought...hearing the average person speaking about science is exactly as cringeworthy as hearing the average person speaking about religion. folks don't explore concepts for their own sake, in and of themselves. folks explore concepts, almost always, in defence of something they already inflexibly believe...and for chiefly psychological reasons.
Yes they may sound intelligent, pay attention he's not answering, simply reciting his text, not impromptu speech att all...
@@suatustel746 He's written dozens of books answering each of these questions, why would he come up with something brand new to say?
@@aaronmueller5802 he's outdated like his contemporaries, and self- conceited...
God’s explanation is in different languages, that’s why, the others, cannot understand, from the beginning, but they effected slowly but stays longer!
lovely discussion
Thank you both!!
“only lies are unsolved, the truth speaks for itself“
“ it’s hard to see the truth when lies are what make you happy now”
Does Richard Swinburne sound like he's just stepped out of the 18th century?
Our lifetime is too short, but it doesn’t mean that , we have no time’s to learned fully from our lifetimes
I started to keep a tally of just how many untestable assumptions Swinburne made in his monologue, _but I ran out of paper._
Every worldview has untestable assumptions. He's also speaking loosely from a body of work. Here, they're talking about concepts of God, not about evidence for God. Did you watch the video?
@@withoutlimits16 *Every worldview has untestable assumptions.*
> Sure but science makes only *one* - if events appear to be independently verifiable by non-partisan 3rd parties we may as well consider them 'not found to be wrong... yet' hence it speaking of 'Theories' & never _ever_ 'Truths'. That's because sceince is certain of _nothing_ & demands evidence for _everything_ whereas religion is certain of _everything_ & demands evidence of _nothing._ So which of the two is more humble - & which more _arrogant_ & which more _humble_ in it's assessments?
*He's also speaking loosely from a body of work.*
> _So_ loosely he can't be pinned down on any of his claims! _What a surprise!_
*Here, they're talking about concepts of God, not about evidence for God.*
> That's because there is no confirmable evidence at all therefore all he can talk about are vague concepts about some mysterious 'creator' which _(surprise suprise)_ could mean almost _anything at all!_
*Did you watch the video?*
> Yes but there was nothing significant to learn. _'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.'_ (Wittgenstein).
Is Good Invented or Discovered?
discovered
Discovered
Both--just like mathematics.
You mean ''god"? In case it is i would add that a god that reveals himself, which is likely what happened if there really is a god, is not discovered nor invented.
I could see mister Swinburne is fully emerged in his Judeo-Christian upbringing and cannot see passed its own loopholes only to point out the loopholes existing in other explanations. Interesting to listen to him none the less.
As a starting point for discussions about God:
Universal God:
My thought: God is our explanation for the causation of reality.
Since we do exist in our reality and God is our vision for the creation of reality, then God does exist. We just do not have knowledge of the nature of God.
Conclusion: we find ourself in a reality bounded by the unknown (due to insufficient information). Since there is no directly observable explanation for the characteristics of God, we must make life choices based upon that which we observe and that which provides the best possible life for all people.
God is our explanation for the causation of reality. No matter which characteristics we attribute to God, the challenge remains to determine how to interact with each other and the rest of creation. At the most fundamental level it is true that each human thought is either right or wrong and each human act is good or evil. An act is evil if it does harm to benefit the self unless in self defense. Therefore, the prime directive is to do no harm.
@@JustAThought01 the simplest yet the melting brain to be concieved like this crucial statement that you made, thanks to god that im also pantheism
@@esotericgnost, the objective is to document and get agreement on the most fundamental ideas upon which we can get maximum agreement. Given the three areas of human information: religion, science and philosophy, which ideas are acceptable across all three areas? Maximum agreement is most likely closer to the truth.
" Richard ! I have been bombarded with all different kinds of concepts of God."
The Logos is common but men live as if they had their own private understanding of it
There is a missed chance around 11 minutes 55 to bring in dipolar theism, or God in his primordial and consequent natures, which provides a good explanation for Swinburne's doubts there I think
None of our assumptions about "God" should be convincing to us. Why? Because none of us have the luxury of a certainty about "God", that's why.
A concept of "God" that isn't God's own would be a subjective concept wouldn't it. Unfortunately, subjective concepts are what all of us are limited to. (Unless one of us is "God" of course.)
The Logos is commun but we live as if we had our private understanding of it
Then we’ll described our relationship!
Then how we described ourselves !
God is within us. We can create any concept of God but, can't run from our conscience.
The Logos is common for all
But what about physical proof? At what point do we require physical proof to say whether a being exists or not? And how does it account for the sheer vastness of our universe, never mind the insignificant planet we live on. There was an analogy by the writer of The hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy, whereby he pretended to be a pond of water that filled a pothole after a rain fall. And the pond of water was absolutely convinced that it was made perfectly to fit in the pothole and the only reasonable explanation was that there had to be a grand designer. At the end of the day, we need physical proof. Otherwise we need to work on the premise that there is no God whatsoever.
The first alternative concept to God has got to be Shermer's Last Law. Will it come up at all in this discussion?
The think is how we described God’s!
THAT IS TO SAY
Surely the original primary principle is infinite awareness not space time. Paradoxically self sustaining by non corporeal subjective objectivity of multiple viewpoints, within and outside the concept. Which ego itself then defines by conceivability? Hence to know the ,"difference," perceived between. -Think you can get that from my over simplified syntax?
The Logos is common but men live as if they have their own private understanding of it
Does panentheism hold that the universe is the "body" of God, or it's just one of a possible infinite number of components within God? Like a single cell in a human body. Or one bubble on the surface of the cosmic ocean.
Pantheism, in its most basic form, is the conceptualization of the cosmos (i.e. all that exists) as god. You could think of it as "the body of god" if you like.
The god of pantheism is an example of an impersonal god, meaning this 'divine cosmos' is not considered to have a personality or consciousness.
A similar concept is panpsychism, which is basically the same as pantheism except the 'divine cosmos' is considered to possess a unified consciousness.
@@b.g.5869 Thank you for posting this explanation. So, a personal God is the traditional benevolent figure that watches over us?
@@buddyrichable1 Yes. But broadly speaking, a personal god is regarded as having a mind and personality, a conscious agent. An impersonal god is not.
Is immortality possible in reality?bcoz some
scientists successfuly achieved reverse
aging.like in Israel's latest research..
They found that spending a lot of time in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber seemed to slow abs even modestly reverse the effects of aging as measured by the length of telomeres in their chromosomes.
It's a significant breakthrough but this will never lead to immortality. It could less to ways to improve the quality of life at advanced ages more than significantly increase its duration.
Isn't evil a thought and or a action?
How could anyone beat this guy in a debate bur How could he ever win o e either.
I know what I’m and I know we’re going through time of darkness, science tells me what I’m, energy (white energy) the door to eternity is a bright light, your spirit energy have to go through, same energy everywhere in the universe. In this life and the next one stay in the light.
When it comes to the gods. Our imagination seems to be without limits. A different god for every level of social development. Yet none are capable of establishing a credible message that holds up to critical examination.
The problem of evil in the religious domain is without solution. It creates a serious contradiction with their loving god model.
“The problem of evil is without solution.”
... it has been addressed (with proposed solutions) by many serious thinkers. Who have you read on the topic?
Please be very specific.
@@joshheter1517
A god can not be the creator without the responsibility for it's results. You can't have it both ways.
And why does it have to be your version ? We do have quite a few conflicting views on the subject. Is there 'a' god ! Is there many gods ? Can you become a god ? Are you a god in your own right ? Will you just be cycled, go to heaven, have your own universe or sit at Odin's table ?
It's all about credibility. And the current views have none.
@@thomasridley8675
This does not answer the very simple question I asked.
This is a dodge and a poor one at that.
@@joshheter1517
If the answer was simple we wouldn't have such a conflict over it's resolution.
And I certainly don't have the time to list all the giant holes in religious theology as it exsits today.
@@thomasridley8675
No one said the answer is “simple”, but *you* did say the problem is “without solution”.
Yet, as far as I can tell, you aren’t at all familiar with any of the relevant proposed solutions.
I can’t say I’m surprised.
Human beings are very unusual creatures and I have a lot of sympathy for them, but when I see two obviously extremely intelligent gentlemen so seriously pondering about the nature of the vey core of existence , or God if that works better, I wonder why those individuals don't comprehend the sheer impossibility off trying to understand the nature of that universal existence. The analogy of an ant trying to speculate on the theories of Einstein comes to mind, although in reality the gap is hundreds of trillions times more than ant v Einstein.. Know thyself as Socrates might have said. You are not going to understand the nature of God except in an extremely symbolic manner. However many Oxford professors and books on the shelves, I'm afraid that book doesn't exist.
even if you’re God’s, you should do the best you can to your environments
If the God’s is creators, so he can fixed his creation, as a mechanics,
I love Eric stein hart so much more tbhf
I have followed this channel for quite some time.. always happy to check. If I can give some pointers based on my own explorations.. i think these would be worth probing into. 1. The concept of "intelligent Design" of life. Let us not be extremist about this. But the fact is, just in looking at the biology of nature from the basics of how actually photosynthesis happens.. the massive biological systems that all life is running on.. we have a way of simplifying the question of "existence" in the mind.. but look a bit around and look at the biology. My studies have shown to me without doubt that life is designed. When and how will people finally realise this is the question. 2. Once we finally realise that it is indeed designed.. the question is who designed it? Now to explore that exact topic I had to go a long way. One neeed to check and try to understand completely the phenomenon of Near Death experiences.. what are these reporting and seeing? What is this? What can be correlate between NDE and DMT Trips? Can these point to us to the nature of consciousness outside of the physical mind? 3. Once all of these are better understood, now another pandora box: regression hypnosis.. where people are being able to recall not only past lives but past lives on other planets and being different types of beings..concepts of so called "source" has been floating around in all these inquiries... all these are important to dig in to piece the mystery of life as we know it. To try to have a definitive understanding of existence..
Intelligent Design is thoroughly debunked creationist bullshit.
@@b.g.5869 Well I have a University degree in Biology and a masters in bionics.. a related field... studied some advanced molecular and genetics stuffs. The opinion of people in the field can be narrow.. but for me it is clear that life is intelligently designed. You need to know and see a lot to understand why it is so. The mistake is when people associate ID with creation.. that is a leap of faith. Maybe we are living inside a smart artificial intelligent machine.. that is able to self design itself?? Cannot be excluded.. but it should be clear that it is intelligently designed.. then move on to the question: how did it happen... ? My current belief is that life was seeded here.
@@rs45888 You should watch this video about the Dover, Pennsylvania school district trial on teaching Intelligent Design in public schools:
czcams.com/video/x2xyrel-2vI/video.html
In the course of the trial, Intelligent Design was thoroughly exposed as an attempt to teach creationism in the classroom by presenting it as something non-religiious.
As far as life on earth being seeded, there are two broad schools of thought on this, neither of which am I convinced of but one is a lot more plausible than the other.
One school of thought is what could be called unguided panspermia, which is the idea that life originates naturally on meteors which seed life on planets they crash into.
The other school of thought could be called guided panspermia, which is the idea that life is being intentionally seeded throughout the galaxy by one or more pre-existing intelligent civilizations.
I don't buy either one but the former is a lot more plausible than the latter.
There was an interesting discussion about this at the 2019 or 2020 Annual Asimov Debate (actually more a discussion than debate) which is on CZcams.
As for guided panspermia, even if this were true, you would still need to explain how life began on the first seeding civilization, so it's ultimately just more cosmic buck passing.
@@b.g.5869
“debunked creationist b...sht”
Interesting statement! I thought it was common knowledge that 6000 year old young Earth wasn’t to be taken literally and was a straw man argument regarding religious thought. Also according to the father of string theory Leonard Susskind, who does not come from a religious perspective, the belief that we will find an equation to explain the unbelievable fine tuning in this universe is as (faith) based as intelligent design. Hence the common term among experts on fine tuning “The Goldilocks universe”. Equally, the multiverse hypothesis is unfalsifiable, that is (unempirical/unscientific). Even if we could demonstrate that the multiverse hypothesis is “scientific” this is ironically the best scientific evidence yet that we have of the possibility of a ground of all being/God. As all things are possible given an infinite multiverse. This is why the brilliant scientist Paul Davis said the multiverse hypothesis has the potential to stifle scientific endeavour because any hypothesis that can be used to explain away anything, even a “Goldilocks” universe, explains nothing. Im not making any appeals to authority but the genius Aquinas discussed this centuries ago and described the possibility of life developing in a way that actually had parallels with evolution. Equally, it was George Lemaitre who demonstrated that the Earth and the universe had a beginning and was billions of years old not atheists or materialists. Ironically, George Lemaitre as well as being a brilliant scientist was also a Catholic priest. It speaks volumes that atheist scientists resisted his theory for several years by labelling his theory the “BIg Bang” as a term of ridicule as they knew it supported the Genesis account.
Nevertheless, the fact is that there are actually a lot of people who are theistic evolutionists who do not support those who reject evolution. The Director of the Genome project Dr Francis Collins is a theistic evolutionist and a Christian who has won awards for discovering cures for diseases. Ironically, Thomas Nagel is an eminent atheist philosopher who believes that materialism is an incomplete theory of reality and that Neo Darwinism is false. So basically you’ve got an atheist who’s a prominent public intellectual criticising materialism and claiming Evolution/Darwinism is false and a prominent world renowned scientist Dr Francis Collins whos a Christian defending evolution. How do you explain this away and at the same time claim there is a conflict between science and religious thought. The fact is that this is what’s known as the conflict myth and is based on ignorance of the reality of metaphysics, the irreducible nature of consciousness and lack of reading around the philosophy of science and religion. The fact is that Methodological naturalism is supposed to be metaphysically neutral. Empirical science is just a tool and not a deity and a foundation for another quasi religion where anyone who questions its orthodoxy is demonised as an heretic. According to the eminent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel “evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends.” (Thomas Nagel). Relativism debunks relativism. Atheism and theism is very diverse so this is clearly a rebuttal and a defeater for the claim that theism has been debunked by naturalism. Any claims to absolute “truth” regarding metaphysics undermines classical materialism as “truth” is a metaphysical, that is a philosophical claim. The only way to avoid being a metaphysician is to say nothing. Nevertheless, arrogant scientists such as Richard Dawkins coldly and collectively claim that the belief that raping and murdering a child is objectively immoral and evil is as arbitrary as the fact we evolved five fingers instead of six and people still wonder why the argument for objective morality
requiring a ground of all being is so compelling.
No offence intended all the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️
@@georgedoyle7971 If you want people to read your responses, break them up into paragraphs.
I read enough of your response however to see that you are terribly confused.
For one, ID isn't young earth creationism, but it's still creationism. I didn't mention anything about a 6000 year old earth.
Susskind doesn't even believe in fine tuning. He thinks we live in a multiverse where a universe like ours is guaranteed. He wrote a book about this called The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design..
But fine tuning wouldn't be proof that a creator god exists anyway. That's just a god of the gaps/argument from ignorance fallacy.
One possible solution to the fine tuning problem even if we don't live in a multiverse is the possibility that the fine structure constant has different values in different regions of space, as some recent measurements suggest.
Also, the Big Bang isn't doesn't prove the universe had a beginning. This is especially true in the case that there is no multiverse.
If there is no multiverse, then our universe is the only one that exists and there was no time or space before or after it.
Everything that ever has or does or will exist is of the universe and nothing that exists is beyond it. True nothingness refers to that which does not and cannot exist; absolute absence.
Even empty space isn't nothing; true nothingness can't occupy space and space itself is something.
As such, even though the universe is of finite age and extension, it still necessary always existed because there is literally nothing before it. It always was and there is no time when it doesn't or didn't exist.
The only other alternative is that there is a multiverse, in which case out universe isn't an absolute beginning either.
I also think it's very telling that you want to dismiss the possibility of a multiverse because it _might_ be untestable at the time you want to believe there's a god whose existence is _definitely_ untestable.
Finally, I never said religion and science are necessarily irreconcilable. It all on what sort of religious ideas one has in mind. Pantheism is the most obvious example a religious person perspective that doesn't deny anything about or add anything to the physical universe or postulate anything beyond it.
Christianity doesn't have to be in conflict with science. The Catholic Church, most mainline Protestant denominations, and people like Francis Collins are all examples of religion or religious people accommodating their religious views so as not to conflict with science.
Conflicts do still exist there, but they're essentially innocuous and indirect. Theistic evolution for example, while not denying anything about the standard model of evolution, nevertheless isn't really the same. It essentially proposes evolution by a mix of random mutation and natural selection and non random mutation and supernatural selection, which is philosophically quite different than the standard view of evolution, not to mention untestable and implausible. But it's a lot better than denying scientific facts.
God should show up now more than ever, yet He/She/It does not. Quite quiet, yet we continue to call upon this divine He/She/It.
We return to before where we were born. That's what we currently know.
I've never believed in an interventionist God. People assume if there was a God he would just show up
Those who do not believe in God and the Bible are also those who are afraid to test scripture to it's fullest. After all, this same premise is why people go and see a doctor. The doctor examines the patient and then the doctor gives his recommendations and prescription. Those who believe in what the doctor is telling them follow through and test the doctors medical advice.
The exact same notion goes with the Bible. Test what the Bible and Jesus said to do and follow through what the Bible and Jesus told His followers to do.
His argument regarding spirits seems to be a god of the gaps because he himself can’t describe what ‘me’ means so he says therefore god.
I love it when Swinburne starts fantasizing about his invisible magical friend.
These types of responses are tired. And part of the problem with public discourse. I don't say atheists believe the magic of something coming from nothing, but anyways...
@@a.t.stowell1709 "I don't say atheists believe the magic of something coming from nothing, but anyways..."
I am so glad you are not saying that, because it would expose your ignorance, and make you look very stupid.
But, as you are not saying that, you are safe.
"These types of responses are tired. And part of the problem with public discourse."
No these kinds of responses are necessary when people still just make stuff up about their invisible magical friends, for no good reason at all, and claim it as truth with severe implications for everybody alive.
These types of responses are not the problem. The problem are the fantasists who make the nonsensical, irrational claims about invisible magical fantasy friends.
@@andreasplosky8516 Your position vis-a-vis theism is disrespectful and arrogant. As if somehow the materialistic hypothesis of origins is necessarily the best/only explanation for the existence of conscious creatures such as ourselves. "How did we get here?" Materialist: physical stuff became different physical stuff improbably and accidentally, which is why we are here and can think about it. Right.
In addition, I have no doubt you are the type of person that would oppress, cancel and otherwise silence religious theists if given the opportunity.
@@a.t.stowell1709 >>"Your position vis-a-vis theism is disrespectful and arrogant."
That is true. I give no respect where no respect is due. Dumb ideas and and irrational fantasies deserve to be mocked at every turn.
And this comes indeed across as arrogant in a CZcams comment section. I understand that, but you should realize there is a big difference between a non-personal response in a comment section and a personally directed response in real life. I am very well aware of the distinction myself.
>>"As if somehow the materialistic hypothesis of origins is necessarily the best/only explanation for the existence of conscious creatures such as ourselves. "How did we get here?" Materialist: physical stuff became different physical stuff improbably and accidentally, which is why we are here and can think about it."
This is not about what materialists might hypothesize about anything. This is about the fantastical and laughable absurdity of theism, but ok... since you chose to broach the subject:
Materialist Science works with the data they can get access to. It does not just make up nonsense like invisible magical friends to explain stuff, because it realizes that invisible magical friends never can be an explanation for anything. The human scientific endeavor strives to stay with the facts, and the scientific method is geared towards preventing fantastical nonsense as is so richly practiced in theology.
And most of all a materialist explanation does not threaten you with hell, or burn you to cinders, or hang you in the town square, if you do not believe it.
>>"In addition, I have no doubt you are the type of person that would oppress, cancel and otherwise silence religious theists if given the opportunity."
Ah, your fantasy runs amok. The famous theistic persecution complex surfaces and suffocates the mind once more....
Weirdly enough we have a rich history that shows that it is theism that is the real danger. Theocracies are without exception murderous and vile...
I would never deny any person his/her right to their ridiculous fantasies, but I do protest against it, as I do here in this comment section. Being an ex-christian myself, who woke up from his theistic slumber, I think theism is a danger and a disgrace.
It is weird how people immediately start to feel persecuted, when someone criticizes their weird theistic fantasies.
@Ahmad Shamil You have no idea what and who you are talking about.
Pseudoscience has no place in my life in any shape or form, as opposed to those who fantasize about their invisible magical friends, and absurd fantasy theologies.
Sorrynotsorry; it’s not a coincidence that many contemporary top tier atheist philosophers of religion prefer Swinburne, despite his flaws
Ok though it is just a basic classic philosophy and theology staff in short. Modern logic (more precise and improved by precise logic symbolic expression of it, on "truth"," proof", "decidability" and that you cannot write it down some terms (like meta-logic principles) in logic symbols like being, cause, then of course the term "God"etc. and events in history (Auchwitz,.Gulags,...Rwanda,...) proved the action of Devil. Still Red Devil has ...quit almost peacefully just few hundred murdered) on AD 1991, 8December, Bialoviezha Accord- a coup of Yeltsin(+chiefs of Republik.of Ukraine,Bialorus),the rest afraid of....Devil Party Secretary, Gorbachev and ..execution of gulags.* December -Feast of Immacualta Conception,i .e a proof "I am"*Exodus 3,14) is ..active. Well, almost we have NOW
a global perfect idiocy (Bible:sin contra Holy Spirit) ,then Ap21:12 is realizing finally
1. An alternative concept of God is that Jesus was the almighty God and then He forsook his power.
2. Since Jesus existed during the whole mankind existence, this means that the almighty God existed only BEFORE it ("the world has not known you").
3. God existed before mankind because his work cannot be done now, in PARALLEL with the mankind existence, in real time, but it had to be done BEFORE that.
4. The almighty God is in that remote past, but - due to his power - He is able to reach us in his future with words and actions. But this conversely means that - from our point of view - we are reached by Him from the past.
5. This means that in practice everything happens as the almighty God were here: He is VIRTUALLY PRESENT here. The "virtual presence" of God here is the "Spirit of God". ("God is a spirit").
Why does Robert give such deference to Mr Swinburne when Richard's arguments are so full of anthropomorphic and circular explanations..? Robert is well able to rip Swinburn's nonsense to shreds and yet he doesn't.
I like your conversations. In contrast to all your guests, I have opened my mind to the possibility that our Creator is the Devine feminine who gave birth to a dream that she constructed out of a sea of consciousness using a multi-layered energetic Matrix.
That is a God I can believe in.
Whats a energetic matrix? A quantum vector field?😀
@@domcasmurro2417
The overriding flow of various spectrums of energy from A to B that creates the next moment along a sequence we refer to as time.
😀
That's your anthropomorphic concept of a god not the actual God
@@johnno. Can you prove that statement?
At least my concept is supported by quantum theory and the notion of Devine love
😀 💜
@@chyfields "...supported by quantum theory..." B.S.!
You cannot insult the teller.It won't help at all. It would be good if you put forward your case. And then disproof Mr Richard Swinburne's arguments.
Be kind.
believe yourself, and trusted the others, as a human being, is the key to the never ended futures
He's reciting scripted text, not talking through by heart..
Scripts he wrote… The man’s a trailblazer
@@whatsinaname691 When he's been quizzed he doesn't blink even eyelid before you finished question. ...
Breaking news: Oxford philosopher gives the same answer to a question he's written about for 50 years
His ramblings about pantheism were incoherent.
All pantheism is, is the conceptualization of the cosmos as an impersonal god. It doesn't entail any unexplained coincidences.
Unexplained coincidences?
@@ferdinandkraft857 Yes, he rambles something about pantheism entailing unexplained coincidences.
If you watch it again it comes right after he says that bit about how if you observed gravity in America and Australia you'd have to assume a common cause, and goes on to suggest that pantheism is akin to seeing that but not assuming a common cause.
It's pretty bizarre actually.
I know Swinburne has a great reputation as a philosopher but I've never been impressed by him at all. He seems like a throwback to the 18th century.
i don’t think you understood what he meant by it entailing “unexplained coincidences.” Firstly, saying that all something is is “x” to try to discredit that it doesn’t entail “y” doesn’t fly. every theory entails an infinite amount of things, it’s just a matter of argument whether a theory entails something or it doesn’t
@@RadicOmega The number of things that exist is irrelevant to pantheism. Pantheism doesn't claim that each thing that exists is an impersonal god, it is the view that collectively, all that exists constitutes a single impersonal diety.
It's not a theory, it's just a conceptualization of the divine.
There's no unexplained coincidences involved.
@@b.g.5869 There can definitely be unexplained coincidences, i don’t see why you think that your explanation of Pantheism concludes that there is no room for unexplained coincidences.
Here’s one that might work (and i’m not asserting that it doesn’t, but the fact that this is a possible argument, just shows that the notion that your conceptualization could not entail any “unexplained coincidences” is wrong.): its might be the case that the the possible attributes of this single deity would not include the parameters for life. Since this being is impersonal, there is no will or action associated with its essence, so it cannot have desires for things like good outcomes, and make it so that good outcomes obtain. Having intelligent life is a good outcome. However, since this being is impersonal, it cannot make it more likely that this deity will have the attributes to allow intelligent life. Thus, the fact that it does allow for the parameters for intelligent life, is just an unexplained coincidence.
Even IF that argument doesn’t work, it just shows that your strategy of simply defining Pantheism as you did, and saying there are “no unexplained coincidences involved” is unsuccessful, since that conceptualization can definitely entail a variety of different facts.
GOD/ Alien,
Same thing.
It's like he knows the truth but dances around it.
"I am the life!"
"Now I want to stand up!"
"I will be, what I am!"
"Yes, I'm coming soon!"
Maybe a God exists, it's plausible, but never a catholic one or ebraic or a muslim one..... Those aren't an example of a true only-love Supreme Being....
The old guy seems to be rambling.
Do you really think man can define what type of person or 'being' God is? How arrogant! Can the chair define how the carpenter looks like or how they work?
I do agree with what Joseph Smith stated. He 'believed in "the plurality of Gods", saying "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods" The 'oneness' of these three beings is that they are of the same mind and would do the same actions in every situation.
We are god-but it's actually just gods all the way down 🤷♀️ you transcend to a new level of godhood/reality and do it all over again.
The more I listen the more disappointed I get. Too many dudes with rambling speeches that say nothing.
The only real answer is I don't know, but people don't like to say that. Instead they ramble meaningless nonsense.
@@user-tf2wd1eh3g - Yep
Watch Alan watts or aquinas 101 much more fascinating
BTW what even is "nothing" does it have an identity
@@neologos4395 - ..Or Morgan--. They all were the bright stars of the 60s 70s. But that was over half of a century ago. No quantum breakthroughs yet. I'd say we are supposed to be doing better by now.
The good episodes are extremely interesting, but there's also a lot of episodes with pointless navel gazing and others that seem more to pander to religious beliefs than seriously entertain them. I think Kuhn wants a Templeton Prize.
And hey, he would deserve it.
My only problem with Kuhn, and it's a serious one, is that he's a propagandist for the Chinese government who writes editorial pieces supporting things like no term limits for China's Glorious Leader and their crackdown on Hong Kong.
The man defiinitely has a dark side, I was very disappointed to find out.
If you're skeptical just Google Robert Lawrence Kuhn and China.
Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial. to Us must ye return.
Quran : 21:35
Actually, this sounds a lot like reincarnation.
Are u still in a cave? Q15:36-38-Satan will be saved! Q42:11- 'there is nothing like Him". What is your "We"? Hm, who (institution) hasa failed you to teach basics of classic philosophy, Bible,and...Quran)hermeneutics. You prove your Immam and Society u in is a total IQ BS!! ps. don't you know that your (version) Quran,Mecca,and Mohammed has not existed at all until....9thcent.Christ Era? Your Cave has for sure no Library
@@krzysztofciuba271 you’re sick in the head.
I can assure you that a catholic or Muslim god could never ever exist, cause a true God could only be a full-loveness One, not a hateful angry vengeful killer god....... All of you religious people are, to me, pathetic and dangerous for yourself and for everyone who is around you
@@kuroryudairyu4567 Demon is giving you this perception with fallacies. Beware of Demon. God is the one same God whatever the religion is. I only gave the reference of 'good and evil' from religious scripture to the topic of the video.
Do Muslims and Jews accept Christian's concept of God? Answer is no.
Do Jews accept Islamic concept of God? Answer is yes.
Do Muslims accept Jewish concept of God yes only to some extend, there are flawed concept of God in Judaism as well.
So learn the concept of God in Islam, your jaw will drop down.
God explained is no God
If there was any god we would not have to spend the last few thousand years figuring out what it is or even if it is. It would have been obvious for everyone. It's not therefore we created gods.
I am not sure about your statement "It would have been obvious for everyone." I mean the statement makes sense but everyone perceives "reality" different. Maybe in God's eyes a "few thousand years" is nothing.
So although I kind of agree with your first 2 statements, I can't accept the idea that "...therefore we created gods" unless I ask you a question. Do you mean we created ALL gods, including the possibility of a true God? John in Florida
If the world were round we would not have to spend the last few thousand years figuring out if it is. It would have been obvious for everyone. It's not therefore the world is flat.
"There is nothing like him (Allah)"
Quran 42:11 and 112:4
@Joker The LORD OF THE RINGS is one of my favorite myths. Did you know it is based on the teachings of Jesus the Christ?
@Joker I think some "myths" are based on reality and some "reality" is based on myth. I know it sounds weird. I think some myths point to an absolute truth. The problem is seeking and finding that truth hidden within the myth. John in Florida
@Joker Tolkien was a christian
There is only ONE human species on earth. There can only one GOD - The Almighty Creator.
It is a disaster to humanity to think there is multiple concepts of God and obvious that those are, theories, only human ideas/opinions. But of course everyone is free to create his/her concept of God...as it is responsible to one choiced belief and worshipping. However it is common sense that at the end only the TRUE GOD can define the true concept of God!
In alQuran the God/(namely Allah in Arabic) narrates Himself in Chapter 112 - al Ikhash/ The Pure;
1. Say: He, Allah, is One( Absolute)
2. Allah is the Absolute Independent (He on Whom all depend).
3. He begets not, nor is He begotten.
4. And none is like Him.
To present the truth that one believes in Islam is not a competitive matter to be argue - to proselytize - to win over convert but , only to let people know and think.
In Allah eye it is no use to a Preacher preaches to win argument (I'm better than thou) or to a Convert if one belief in Allah is not sincere (in one heart) that Allah is the Only One True God and Islam is the Truth from the True God and Prophet Muhammad SAW is Allah final Prophet.
Allah is the Absolute Independent ....doesn't need anyone argument to show HIS RELIGION is the Truth.....His series of Books of Revelation are sufficient as proves throughout the history of mankind on earth!
There have been several human species:
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Cro-Magnon
etc.
@@ferdinandkraft857
So which species are you?
According to Quran every human being were asked by The God(only one) before there birth for this life on earth and every human being agreed to it. So this life is like examination. You are not allowed to cheat in examination but may be you cheat in this world school or college examinations but it is impossible to cheat in the examination by The God(one only) for human being which we all agreed. Now you will all ask why cannot we remember that time when we were asked. We don't remember because there would have no examination. Also you cannot cheat death or what happens to you after you are dead. No body or science proved any thing after death. Also can you remember the time when you were inside mother alive. But you can see yourself alive and believe it. Every human knows that this life is so short and science proved that the life in this world is nothing to compare to the cosmos. This is just like in examination room you are. Where there is so short time and you want every second to not wasted. Now if you have no ego problem and honest in getting knowledge for truth you will accept the truth. We are not robots. We can think freely and decide what is right and what is wrong. Truth will always be truth. Now you say why there is evil or hard times in this life. These are all part of examination. Those who have so much wealthy life in this world will be asked on judgment day every penny they have spent and how they earned it and all deeds they have done. And poor people or people with so many problems in this life will benefit them more than the wealthy people but will asked for every deed they also done. Those people who have mental illness which cannot think to decide right or wrong will have no accountability on judgment day and will be in paradise. Those who can think and decide right and wrong will be accountable for every deed. You all must read Quran. You will find all your answers. But you must read it without ego problem. Also read it for guidenss. You will be surprised
Trump is proof. God exist. L. O. L.
Firstly, God is not a concept. God is Generator, Enabler and Sustainer and they are not concepts but existent functions. Without broader consciousness, mental apparatus coupled with all internal processes and also the environment, you wouldn't be. God is the life-giver that allows many God-doubting clowns to engage in mental gymnastics in the first place.
All that is just _your_ concept of God.
@@ferdinandkraft857 No. What else could God be?
Philosophers are useless to explain ultimate How (i.e. the physicists job), and can only postulate non-minimalist answers to ultimate Why (the theologians job). What a weak method.
Philosophy, at it's best, is a necessary compliment of scientific inquiry, not a rival or alternative.
Also, this old cliche that science can answer Hows but not Whys is rubbish. Science answers Hows and Whys all the time.
It's only the Really Big Whys (e.g. "Why are the laws of physics such as they are?", the hard problem of consciousness) that science struggles with.
But theologians don't really have any answers to the Big Whys either. "God did it" isn't really an explanation of "Why?"
@@b.g.5869 fundamental Whys, by definition, have no answers, it is no cliche... except in case one postulates such answers.
PS: BTW, I like very much such illustration by Feynman
czcams.com/video/36GT2zI8lVA/video.html
@@b.g.5869 I pretty much agree with you and I too struggle with the "Really Big Whys." I think a lot of mystery as to the "why" will not be answered in this short life. However I think the right path to find some of the "whys" lie in the teachings of Jesus. The science of sound reasoning should lead to the truth.
@@rafael.frigori The cliche I referred to has nothing to do with fundamental Whys being answerable or not (and they're not by definition unanswerable, though they possibly are), it's the old "Science can only answer Hows, but not Whys, and Religion answers Whys".
@@b.g.5869 religions do not answer anything, otherwise they only postulate answers (or cutoffs in the search). In the end, fundamental "Whys" make no sense, at all, because they induce infinite recursions as Feynman masterfully explained.
Again, we assume we are "special" and the universe was created for us and god is there pushing the buttons because an electron can share a tiny bit of information wirh a proton, is the basis of this. And "he" was said 3 times. Clueless. Just because you don't know or have anyone to blame, doesn't give one the power to create a god. Maybe people instead might be special with each other, random acts of kindness, feels great instead of whining about being special. You ain't but you could step in for god and make others feel special.
Wasted CZcams space and my time...
... (this comment is) Wasted CZcams space and my time...
See how easy that is?
Christianity is not monotheistic.
Yes it is
All concepts of any god are opposite of facts. Concepts of gods are 100% hocus pocus, nothing else.
What does it mean for a concept to be “opposite of facts”?
What facts are “opposite” of the concept of God?
Please be very specific.
@@joshheter1517 What he means is that there only is a natural world and science has all the facts. Which of course is nonsense. If ''everything'' would be a simplistic materialist construct we would have ALL answers long time ago. We are simply not able to put everything in perspective because scientific method is a way to simplist tool for that.
Not a shred of evidence for any of this.
they're talking about concepts of God, not about evidence for God. Did you watch the video?