The existence of God has been a question that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time and it is a question that has divided numerous philosophers throughout history. In this essay, I will critically evaluate Richard Swinburne’s cosmological argument which can be found in this book is there a god?
Richard Swinburne states that his book is trying “To reach a conclusion about whether, on balance the arguments indicate that there is a God or that there is not." Richard Swinburne attempts to convey his cosmological argument by attempting to explain how we explain things. Swinburne states that “we can find two different kinds of explanations of events”, the personal and the intimate. Inanimate objects of similar kinds all have similar powers …show more content…
"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity, “one god is simpler than multiple Gods. This is essential Swinburne’s argument. Swinburne argues that materialism does not satisfy Criterion 2 because it is a brute fact and to reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained. And further, it does explain why Theism is simpler than polytheism. For example, in a material world, there exists Partial 1 and it has a mass of 1.9765 gm and it has a charge of 2.385, the question one asks is why does Partial 1 has a mass of 1.9765 gm and not 1.4765 gm and this question or wonder could be infinite. Swinburne claims that humans seek ultimate explanations and Materialism lacks this. The application of Occam's razor is if a single self-sufficient explanation for can be found, then there is no gain in exploring other more complex explanations and as Swinburne stated himself “there could be no simpler explanation than the one which postulates only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism.” Theism postulates for its one cause a person, infinite power, infinite knowledge and freedom which, according to all we know about God; defines God. Therefore, according to Richard Swinburne, the personal rather than the intimate explanations satisfies the all Criteria and gives us the ultimate …show more content…
As Swinburne stated that there could be no simpler explanation than the one which postulates only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism. The Criteria that needs to be met according to him, to prove or disprove the existence of God is meant by only the personal explanation which gives us the ultimate explanation for the existence of the World. However, while this may convince many individual that Theism is indeed correct, I would disagree because our interpretations depend on how much we are prepared to trust a posteriori knowledge. “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is
Richard Swinburne states that his book is trying “To reach a conclusion about whether, on balance the arguments indicate that there is a God or that there is not." Richard Swinburne attempts to convey his cosmological argument by attempting to explain how we explain things. Swinburne states that “we can find two different kinds of explanations of events”, the personal and the intimate. Inanimate objects of similar kinds all have similar powers …show more content…
"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity, “one god is simpler than multiple Gods. This is essential Swinburne’s argument. Swinburne argues that materialism does not satisfy Criterion 2 because it is a brute fact and to reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained. And further, it does explain why Theism is simpler than polytheism. For example, in a material world, there exists Partial 1 and it has a mass of 1.9765 gm and it has a charge of 2.385, the question one asks is why does Partial 1 has a mass of 1.9765 gm and not 1.4765 gm and this question or wonder could be infinite. Swinburne claims that humans seek ultimate explanations and Materialism lacks this. The application of Occam's razor is if a single self-sufficient explanation for can be found, then there is no gain in exploring other more complex explanations and as Swinburne stated himself “there could be no simpler explanation than the one which postulates only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism.” Theism postulates for its one cause a person, infinite power, infinite knowledge and freedom which, according to all we know about God; defines God. Therefore, according to Richard Swinburne, the personal rather than the intimate explanations satisfies the all Criteria and gives us the ultimate …show more content…
As Swinburne stated that there could be no simpler explanation than the one which postulates only one cause. Theism is simpler than polytheism. The Criteria that needs to be met according to him, to prove or disprove the existence of God is meant by only the personal explanation which gives us the ultimate explanation for the existence of the World. However, while this may convince many individual that Theism is indeed correct, I would disagree because our interpretations depend on how much we are prepared to trust a posteriori knowledge. “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is