Richard Swinburne - What is God Like?

[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.

[rogerparada]

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.

[daraghaznavi]

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.

[bouabidkarrous]

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.

[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!

[tedgrant]

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

[nutellasandwhich]

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).

[GregBechtel]

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.

[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.

[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?

[TheGuiltsOfUs]

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

[dlbattle]

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

[RushFan]

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.

[jacderida]

Richard Swinburne, the master of piffle!

[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.

[daius]

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

[LetReasonPrevail]

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 chirping....old idiot slowly drifts off to sleep.

[dianekerrison]

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

[haimbenavraham]

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