Richard Swinburne - What is God Like?

For more videos from Richard Swinburne click here bit.ly/1DwpGcp
For more videos on what God is like click here bit.ly/1aPkrJl
Visit us at www.closertotruth.com for more videos from the world's leading thinkers exploring the vital questions of existence

[@Mathswart]

1) man watches video 2) man reacts 3) man writes negative comments such as "this is false i know the answers and i am rude blablabla" this whole process teaches something about man I however think this Richard is a very clever man and I wish to post a positive comment: Very intersting video. There. thanks

[@Felipe.Taboada.]

One of the best theologians today, just a legend.

[@scoreprinceton]

In addition, if we construe the Christian view that humans are created in the image of God, then, the "self and all the rest" might be validated not only by the existence of God but also the existence of humans.

[@Shane7492]

In my opinion, he's extremely overrated. Non-dual theologians have a much more reasonable grasp on the nature of God.

[@rogerparada4995]

I've always found it funny how so many atheist never seem understand presentations like this. He's talking about his conception of God, not his evidence or arguments for it. If you read some of his work, you will see that he begins with his conception of God and THEN argues for it. There's no point in whining about him not presenting evidence in the video because that wasn't the point.

[@lubosnahlovsky557]

Roger Parada Until these apologists present some sort of evidence for their conjectures it´s nothing but claptrap. What sort of evidence has he (or anyone really) EVER presented in favor of existence of this supposed male magic person?

[@gabepearson6104]

@@lubosnahlovsky557 well read his works and you’d know, I’m not doing research for you

[@lubosnahlovsky557]

@@gabepearson6104 I have done a lot of reseach during the last 5 years since I made the comment and I have found nothing. I will let you know in 5 more years should I be more succesful. /s

[@daraghaznavi7171]

Swinburne argues that a person with no limits is simpler than a person with some limits but when he turns to the topic of multiverse, he says that a narrow multiverse (consisting of universes with similar laws to ours but different constants) is simpler than a wide multiverse (where all kinds of laws and constants are allowed). I think if we treat the two cases in a similar way, we should agree that an initial or fundamental physical state, whatever it is (quantum vaccum, fluctuating branes, etc.), which has no limits in giving rise to universes is simpler than a state which has limited range of possibilities to come true.

[@bouabidkarrous4174]

There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer and All-Seer.Whatever your mind tells you about God,He is not.

[@dynamic9016]

Very interesting.

[@Appleblade]

So, like a good empiricist, since we know we are persons, we ought to first think of a personal explanation for everything ... economy of explanation. Very scientific!

[@tedgrant2]

What is God like ? Let's ask an expert ! That is, somebody who has spent a lot of time examining God very carefully.

[@tigno323]

Finally a new video, thanks!

[@nutellasandwhich3532]

okay, so the title of the video says: What is God like? Not give me evidence for the existence of God. Now I know that Swinburne can be quite annoying to listen to and sometimes sounds like a prig, as a commenter below said, but he sticks to what he is asked at least! Many of the comments below are purely ad hominem and don't actually challenge anything that he said (other than the ones from the problem of evil, those I understand). But really? If I were to ask someone that the question "why does the universe exist?" as opposed to "how did the universe come into existence?" would anyone still really categorize the former as pure nonsense because it does not involve mathematics nor science as the latter does? I don't think so because philosophical questions can be just as or even more important than scientific ones, anyone knows this when they ask deep ethical or metaphysical questions as "why is there something rather than nothing?" So God, being one of the most important subjects to think about, has the same impact of wonder in our thinking, and even if you do not think that God exists, you should not dismiss a subject so important out of hand (even when the interviewee sounds as annoying as Swinburne).

[@ferkinskin]

The disadvantage, I find, with the internet is that, for example, had this been printed on paper I could have at least have wiped my arse on it. This is a little difficult with digital media! The real answer would have been- God is incomprehensible and therefore indefinable and therefore not "like" anything I or anyone else knows or could know.

[@GregBechtel88]

It seems from this video that on Swinburne's account of Omnipotence, God can bring about any logically possible state of affairs. Famously though, Swinburne denies that God is a logically necessary being. So, Swinburne believes God's nonexistence is a logically possible state of affairs. I wonder , then, on what grounds Swinburne denies that God can self-annihilate - assuming he does deny this - given his view that God's non-existence falls within the scope of his power.

[@wet-read]

In a book about less well known German philosophers of the late nineteenth century, I found out that one of them (I forget which) thought that God created only so that It could experience suicide, albeit a fragmentary suicide.

[@lukeabbott3591]

Divine Simplicity is better

[@robotaholic]

There was not one bit of evidence for anything discussed. He just asserts god is like this, god is like that. He could have described a character in a fictional movie. As far as I know, every entity that has ever been discovered is embedded in an environment that they do not control entirely. If you insist a God exists, in what environment does that God exists and how can you make all this up?

[@tarcusmoonweed]

Try and replace the label 'god' with 'universe' or phrase 'everything that is', which includes us. And really what the notion is trying to describe, is what is left, when our ego's- or self-concept- have completely dissolved. The little bundles of universe that we call 'our brains' chop, divide and measure the universe to create the illusions of separateness... If you've ever tried DMT, LSD, or taken meditation seriously, you may have experienced ego loss, or ego death, and feel this oneness, and just 'be'. This state of being, without illusion, just pure awareness, is what (most/some) religions call God... And to learn that YOU, as you think you exist, really actually dont exist, is what i think they mean by 'finding god'... It probably shouldn't have a label at all, but how else can we talk about it? Or should we just... not? Science is fucking awesome by the way, but by describing the universe/god/everything, we seperate ourselves from it. Religions put emphasis not on describing it, but on learning how to BE it... (from a place of egolessness)

[@PhoenixMarco5]

Dude, that's what giving a definition consists of...

[@wet-read]

@@tarcusmoonweed Sure, but what Swinburne and many other people have in mind is not that but rather what is instead some essentially beefed up version of humans that created everything and also wants and expects things from us. A good alternative term for what you speak of (something both intriguing and frightening to me) would be oneness. A certain Priest even wrote about this, but I can't make sense of it.

[@jacderida]

Richard Swinburne, the master of piffle!

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

Gods personality all depeds on the theist doesn't it?

[@ingenuity168]

Bad audio

[@LetReasonPrevail1]

Interviewer: "Richard, many thanks for that extensive & thoughtful description of God's nature. As a minor follow-up, would you please share with us the evidence you have at your disposal that supports your god description?" Richard: Blank stare.....silence.....crickets chirping....old idiot slowly drifts off to sleep.

[@HaecceitasQuidditas]

Or he could refer to his extensive published work on the subject, including books (such as "The Existence or God") published by Clarendon Press which is known as the press where Oxford University publishes books of particularly high academic significance.

[@itsjustameme]

Evil is the result of irrational desires and since this god character has no irrational desires he must therefore be perfectly good... ... What a huge steaming pile of absolute nonsense. How is this anything other than a bare assertion? Sure from our perspective good certainly is preferable to evil and since we desire good (or at least the effects of people being good) we prefer good over evil - after all we are the ones who are living in the world that is being effected by our good or evil deeds. But to a being that it is impossible to effect negatively or positively how does it make sense to say that evil specifically is the result of less rational desires than good is? It seems to me that if there were an omnipotent being with no irrational desires the default position would be indifference - not benevolence.

[@Wellcosh]

White noise.

[@da12ius]

This logic seems decent. Perhaps the traditional response to string theory applies: "It describes some universe, but does it describe our universe?"

[@dlbattle100]

I see no reason why you couldn't exist and not exist at the same time.

[@tylerjungbauer9886]

+David Battle Because this is a direct contradiction of existence. If we compare existence (which we don't quite understand in any sort of simplistic terms at all) with life, and non-existence with death, then we obviously come to the conclusion that we cannot do both at the same time. One cannot be alive and dead at the same time, and thus one cannot exist and yet not exist at the same time, either.

[@dlbattle100]

John Truman Yes I understand that in your mind you don't think you can exist and not exist at the same time. But in quantum physics, things can be in a juxtaposition of states. See the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. I'm not saying that reality IS like that at the human scale, but it certainly is at the microscopic scale. And there's no reason that we can be sure it isn't like that at larger scales. So like I said originally, I see no reason why you couldn't exist and not exist at the same time.

[@tylerjungbauer9886]

That is a good point, I forgot about the quantum mechanical problem. In this way, I guess you're right. Then again, I think that if we narrow down the definition of existence to "living," then we can say that it is impossible for things to exist and not exist simultaneously, because dead things do not pop back into existence like particles do. Therefore, if we narrow it down to life and death, I think that we can say it is impossible to both exist and not exist at the same time. Because, even though Schrodinger's cat may simultaneously be alive and dead, there is always the possibility that it exists within one universe and does not exist in another: therefore, the cat does not necessarily exist (or not exist, I suppose) in both states within the same universe.

[@MacedonianHero]

So if god is all powerful and perfectly good, then why so much evil and suffering. And I'm not talking out human induced suffering, but that from the natural world? Just go into any children's hospital to see his inability or malevolence to help.

[@slimski]

Jesus fucking christ

[@dianekerrison9100]

so it follows that a being with these attributes must by necessity be referred to with the male pronoun. Why?

[@haimbenavraham1502]

According to this definition, God must get awfully bored with ' himself'. I'm wondering if under these circumstances if 'he' could have any friends!

[@ingenuity168]

Don't even try to describe what you call "God " if he exists. From all the evidence, he's not a very good guy if he does exist.

[@mastertheillusion]

What is the point in discussing something completely invisible, undetectable, unproven within and without math, can't be actually heard, can't be touched, hell, can't even be really identified and hand it the name of a universe creator who never answers calls. You grant approval of horseshit here.

[@byronand5]

Eight minutes and forty nine seconds of drivel.

[@TalladegaTom]

Byron Anderson Agreed. Pure woo woo talk.

[@dewinthemorning]

I absolutely agree with you! : )

[@luckyyuri]

those simple english phrases had some important implications which i don't think you people got. so in brief, if you got nothing new out of that it's because of your own limitations

[@TalladegaTom]

anywherein12seconds Please expand on that. What is it specifically that we are apparently falling short of understanding?

[@luckyyuri]

first of all i appreciate people who give their personal time to share knowledge (true or false) like in all these CTT talks; second, i see all the time people having the reflex of saying "i knew that" but had they been asked themselves to give the knowledge they'd be incomplete, ambiguous, unmethodical, to put it mildly. so let the people who can pursue a coherent discussion state their opinions, interpretations and ideas, so we all benefit. this talk elaborates on aspects of God based on the middle eastern consanguineal religions, a very particular case; he's not saying this is the only cultural view of God. he doesn't postulate anything, so, you can't possibly say he's wrong because you'd fall in the category of taliban fundamentalists who deny the right to interpretation outside authority (and we know authority what's about). i for one, liked very much the inference that God, having only true beliefs, knowing everything, he's in another type of relationship with choice - what is there to choose for Him? i honestly didn't thought about that; you, smart alecs, didn't tell me; so i thank this guy for his time and effort with a like, which you apparently get for, only, a common question, in the comment section.

[@shaneharrington3655]

Why all the anthropomorphism? Presupposes human definitions could accurately apply. Annoying voice too..

[@shaneharrington3655]

Define your terms of "possibility".

[@michaelgutter2004]

Annoying post you made

[@suatustel746]

I'm yawning now..

[@1nzi]

Funny how such nonsense can come out of an Oxford University graduate.

[@cristopher.ah.]

1nzi I think that you must go to Oxford University and tell this directly to Swinburne, Im pretty sure that you are more bright than him... maybe you can teach him the truth about the world... You could even give some lectures on Oxford!!... I go if you do that! :D is the oportunity to learn something!

[@1nzi]

Cristopher A Unfortunately Mr.Swinburne is a lost cause. His brain cannot process information logically. No point in engaging in a rational conversation with this man. Take his university degrees away, and no sensible person would take his arguments seriously.

[@cristopher.ah.]

1nzi Yes, I think that you are right... What is your secret? why you are so smart?

[@1nzi]

Cristopher A God made me smart. Unfortunately, everyone else who he intentionally made stupid will go to hell. Why? Because the universe revolves around me. And God created me because I am special.

[@cristopher.ah.]

1nzi Tell me more!... I see the light!