Philosophy

Is There a God?

Is There a God?

  • Downloads：6797
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-10-17 09:55:06
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Richard Swinburne
  • ISBN：019958043X
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

In this compelling new edition， Richard Swinburne， one of the most distinguished philosophers of religion today， argues that contrary to the claims of Richard Dawkins and others， science actually provides good grounds for belief in God。 Why is there a universe at all？ Why is there any life on
Earth？ How is it that discoverable scientific laws operate in the universe？ Swinburne uses scientific reasoning to argue that the best answers to these questions are given by the existence of God。 The picture of the universe that science gives us is completed by God。 This updated edition features a
new， stronger argument as to why theism does--and materialism does not--provide a very simple ultimate explanation of the world。 And Swinburne also now examines the idea of the possible existence of many other universes， and its relevance to his arguments from the fine-tuning of our universe to the
existence of God。 Powerful， modern， and accessible， Is There a God？ is must reading for anyone interested in an intelligent and approachable defense of the existence of God。

Download

Reviews

Anna Cvetko ，

No citations。 Bad criterian provided for evaluating theories。 A very odd section that uses thought experiments about extreme brain operations to prove the existence of souls。Unimpressed。

Debs ，

I wasn’t that satisfied with the personal justification for the existence of a conscious deity， as I could see atheists easily being able to dismiss it as evolutionarily advantageous neurobiochemical phenomena （see Pascal’s Wager）。

Stephanie ，

Disappointed that this was required reading at my son’s college。 It was a lukewarm， speculative piece of noncommittal drivel。 There were a few decent points， but ultimately the author decided that if you do believe in God， you should probably do something about it。 Wow！ Blow my socks off with that inspiring revelation！🙄

Matt Whitby ，

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 Spoiler: No。I can't remember the last time I read a book quite this bad。 Spoiler: No。I can't remember the last time I read a book quite this bad。 。。。more

Thomas Lønn Hammer ，

Swinburne makes a fairly strong case for the position of theism， the weakest link being the chapter on souls。 I know what he means in that chapter， it's essentially dualism， however it is written in such a way that strictly rational scientific types will cringe。 Swinburne makes a fairly strong case for the position of theism， the weakest link being the chapter on souls。 I know what he means in that chapter， it's essentially dualism， however it is written in such a way that strictly rational scientific types will cringe。 。。。more

Sajjad ，

این کتاب به پیشنهاد یکنفر خوندم اما متاسفانه دلایل اصلی چنگی به دلم نزد و دقیقا یاد استدلالهای متفکران اسلامی افتادمبیشتر فرض نویسنده این بود که اگر چیزی قابل مشاهده نباشه دلیلی بر رد اون چیز نیستمثلا ندین نیروی الکترومغناطیس و ندیدن امواج و 。。。 دلیلی بر نبودن اونها نیست بعد این پیشفرض تعمیم داده بود به افکار و تصورات ذهن و اینکه فرض کرده بود اگر مغز یکنفر دو قسمت کنیم و اگر فرض کنیم طرف راست مغز اون جنبه مثبت اون باشه رو در بدن فرد دیگری قرار بدیم و طرف چپ اون فرد جنبه بد اون باشهپس خود اون فرد این کتاب به پیشنهاد یکنفر خوندم اما متاسفانه دلایل اصلی چنگی به دلم نزد و دقیقا یاد استدلالهای متفکران اسلامی افتادمبیشتر فرض نویسنده این بود که اگر چیزی قابل مشاهده نباشه دلیلی بر رد اون چیز نیستمثلا ندین نیروی الکترومغناطیس و ندیدن امواج و 。。。 دلیلی بر نبودن اونها نیست بعد این پیشفرض تعمیم داده بود به افکار و تصورات ذهن و اینکه فرض کرده بود اگر مغز یکنفر دو قسمت کنیم و اگر فرض کنیم طرف راست مغز اون جنبه مثبت اون باشه رو در بدن فرد دیگری قرار بدیم و طرف چپ اون فرد جنبه بد اون باشهپس خود اون فرد کدوم محسوب میشه اون قسمت راست یا چپ مغز که در بدن فرد دیگری کاشته شده اول اینکه باید گفت مثلا در مورد امواج مغناطیسی و امواج رادیویی و。。 درسته که دیده نمیشه در مورد حالات انسانی همینطور غمگین یا خوشحال بودن فرد درسته که مشخص نیست اما میشه فهمیداما میشه اون از طریق ازمایش اندازه گرفت وبه وجودشون پی برد اما در مورد روح و。。 هیچ راهی برای اثبات وجودش نیستدوما اینکه هرچیزی که قابل دیدن نباشه اما ممکنه وجود داشته باشه استدال درستی نیست نمونه اش قوری راسل یا خدای اسپاگتی یا حتی هری پاتر با این فرض ممکنه وجود داشته باشن درسته که دیده نمیشن اما با این فرض ممکنه وجود داشته باشندر مورد مغز هم من نمیدون این دانشمند چطور مغز دو چیز مجزا دونسته اینطوری نیست که مغز طرف راست مثلا باعث فرد خوب بودن و صفات خوب باشه و قسمت چپ باعث صفات بد ！ هر چند با وجود فاصله مغز در نیمکره راست و چپ اما صفات ورفتار و حتی خاطرات ما بصورت در هم تنیده در مغز شکل میگیره اینطور نیست که مثلا برای یک کار فقط یک قسمت مغز درگیر بشه که بفرض با جدا کردن مغز و پیوند اون در ادم دیگه دو فرد مختلف شکل بگیرهو اما اینکه در یکجای کتاب گفته که نظریه داروین در توصیف امیال باورها، اهداف و افکار و احساسات توضیحی ندارهاین هم حرف بی اساسی اولا اهداف و افکار ببیشتز انسانها درخدت دو چیزه بقا و تولید مثل فرد که این جز اساسی نظریه تکامل داروینهدر مورد بیشتر امیال ها و باورها ما هم سرچشمه گرفته از محیط ما هست ، اینکه در کجای دنیا و چه کشوری بدنیا بیایم در نحوه نگرش ما در دنیا تاثیر گذاره نمونه اش نویسنده کتاب که سعی در حقانیت دین مسیحی میکنه که اگر در جای دیگه ای بدنیا میومد عقاید متفاوتی داشت و همینطور افکار هر جامعه و دین برای بقا و متناسب با روحیات افراد رشد و گسترش پیدا کرده که بازم برای بقا افراد جامعه مفید بودمثلا در شرق میبینیم که اثری از افکار یکتا باوری نیست اما در غرب سه دین یکتا پرستی بوده که خود سرچشمه گرفته از دنیهای قبلی بودهدر کل هر دینی و عقیده ای در فرهنگی تونسته شکل بگیره که بتونه برای اون جامعه مفید بوده باشه و گرنه توسط افکار جدید حذف شدهاین هم بنوعی داروینیسم دینیدر فصل اراده ازاد نویسنده و مترجم به دوراهی و چوب دوسر نجس قرار گرفتننویسنده استدال کرده با توجه به عدم قطیت در دنیا کوانتوم پس ما هم اراد ازاد داریم و دچار جبر نیستیماما مترجم به مشکلی دیگه ای برخورده که اگه عدم قطعیت در دنیای کوانتوم وجود نداره ممکنه قانون علت و معلول زیر سوال بره و جود خدا هم نفی بشه و ممکنه جهان تصادفی بوجود اومده باشهاین مشکل اراده و اختیار و رابطه قانون علت و معلول همیشه برای فلاسفه اسلامی مشکل ساز بوده چون تایید یکی نفی دیگری میشدههمیینه که گفتن نه انسان مختار هست و نه نیست و اینطوری از زیر بار این مشکل فرار کردناما در زمینه شر طبیعی نویسنده شروع به استدالهای ابکی کرده اینطوری که شرهای طبیعی مثل کرونا ، زلزله و。。 و گفته خدا به انسان عقل داده و بره بفهمه علت اینها چی و اینکه مشکلات برطرف کنه و اینکه از دل مشکلات قهرمانها بوجود میاد و اینکه این حوادث حتما خیری در اونها نهفته اس که ما نمی بینممن نمفهمیم خدا بیکاره زلزله ایجاد کنه تا عده ای زیاد زن و بچه بمیرن تا قهرمان پیدا بشه و استعداد های انسان شکوفا بشه و انسانها برن کشف کنن علت زلزله و طوفان چی بعد مهارش کنن و اینکه کرونا باید صد ها هزار نفر الان بکشه تا انسانها برن واکسنش کشف کنن و اینطوری با این کارها خدا میخاد خودش یاد انسان بندازه ！این چه خیری در این کار نهفته اس！ و چرا خدا اینطوری خودش میخهواد به یاد انسان بندازه برای من تعجبهچرا خدا نمیاد مثلا فردا تمام کرونا توی کشورهای کره زمین بطور مروموزی نابود کنه و اینطوری ما پی نبریم که یک نیروی خیر و بالاتری وجود دارهایا اینطوری سریعتر به وجود خدا پی نمیبریم！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！و 。。。more

Hunter Smithpeters ，

There are strong points and weak （or rather questionable） points in this book。 Strong points are his defense of the teleological， cosmological， and resurrection arguments。 His epistemology with regard to religious experience is also quite good and in his own words he argues for similar ideas as that of Plantinga: defeaters for beliefs and how a Christian is rationally justified in belief in God from religious experience， Calvin’s ‘sensitas divinitas’。 All good stuff。Where Swinburne seems weak or There are strong points and weak （or rather questionable） points in this book。 Strong points are his defense of the teleological， cosmological， and resurrection arguments。 His epistemology with regard to religious experience is also quite good and in his own words he argues for similar ideas as that of Plantinga: defeaters for beliefs and how a Christian is rationally justified in belief in God from religious experience， Calvin’s ‘sensitas divinitas’。 All good stuff。Where Swinburne seems weak or questionable is his promotion of open theism， claiming that it is impossible for God to know the future， and his elevation of human free will （or at least his definition of it）。 Here， he doesn’t give strong arguments for why he thinks these things but instead just merely supposes it。 I’m left thinking， “well why？” 。。。more

Josiah Watson ，

My review will focus on my two favorite sections of the book。 Though I will briefly mention， that I believe this book is the best starting point for young/starting apologists。 For this main reason， first， Swinburne is one of the greatest philosophers of religion of all time， thus he actually understands the philosophical methodology， such as background data， simplicity， and explanatory power。 This point alone is refreshing and helpful。 It seems as if a good sum of unqualified Christian apologist My review will focus on my two favorite sections of the book。 Though I will briefly mention， that I believe this book is the best starting point for young/starting apologists。 For this main reason， first， Swinburne is one of the greatest philosophers of religion of all time， thus he actually understands the philosophical methodology， such as background data， simplicity， and explanatory power。 This point alone is refreshing and helpful。 It seems as if a good sum of unqualified Christian apologists is writing apologetic books these days， therefore spreading bad epistemology among other things。 I will mention， that a perceived weakness may be Swinburne's brevity in his explanations on some points。 Though I will counter that， by saying that this book is NOT written for professional philosophers but for laymen。 If you want detailed expositions from Swinburne， read "The Existence of God"， "The Coherence of Theism"， "Providence and The Problem of Evil"， among many other voluminous volumes from him。 Now that I got that out the way， I will focus the following sections in Swinburne's book， first， the fine-tuning of the universe， second， the problem of evil。I believe the fine-tuning argument for a life-permitting universe is a great argument for God's existence and remains among one of my favorites， so it was really awesome to read Swinburne's exposition on this argument。 He highlighted what one would expect when presenting the argument， the big bang， cosmological constants， and etc。 Though my favorite point in the book on fine-tuning was the correction of the evolution vs creation debate。 Swinburne argues while the Darwinian explanation is a correct explanation but not an ultimate explanation。 What does he mean？ An ultimate explanation is one reaching the highest level for why those laws rather than any other ones operated。 As Swinburne states， The laws of evolution are no doubt the consequences of the laws of chemistry governing the organic matter of which animals are made。 And the laws of chemistry hold because of the fundamental laws of physics hold。 But just those fundamental laws of physcis rather than any others？Swinburne is highlighting what both theists and atheists often miss， material objects have the same powers and liabilties as every other material object， so why just these laws？ The materialist will often there is no explanation， while the theist claims God has reason to bring these laws about because they have the consequence that animals will eventually evolve into humans。 This is a point that I believe atheists， such as， Richard Dawkins miss and theists， such as， Stephan Meyer miss。 The second highlight of the book， I thought was on the problem of evil。 I will avoid a detailed explanation because I believe everyone is familiar with the problem of evil。 Put simply， it asserts that an all-loving， all-powerful， and all-knowing God would most likely not want to allow certain unnecessary sufferings， such as cancer， hurricanes， and etc。 There two distinct categories of suffering， there is moral evil and natural evil。 Natural evil is suffering （or evil） not illiberally caused by humans or produced by human beings to occur as a result of their negligence。 For example， this would be both physical and mental suffering， such as disease， natural disasters， and accidents unpredictable by humans bring in their train。 Moral evil is caused deliberately by humans or failing what they ought and ought not to do。 This could be starvation allowed to be in Africa for example。 Since I believe Swinburne has contributed the most novel approach to natural sufferings， it is most appropriate to stay on that topic。 His theodicy put simply， by God allowing natural evils and suffering the world， it gives us a chance to respond good or bad。 If a friend just lost a loved one to cancer， it gives to a chance to show a greater good， e。g。 compassion， or respond badly without empathy or love in any kind。 He argues without any suffering or evil， we would little to no opportunity to be heroic in a time that demands it， showing compassion to a friend when he/she needs it。 God has the right to allow natural evils， to a limit， to occur because it gives opportunities to improve our character as a person， thus making it essential for growth。 In conclusion， I think this book is essential to the budding apologist because of its understanding of philosophical methodology。 For that reason alone， the book is worth the buy。 As well as the brilliant insights that are difficult to find on the lay-level。 As well as， I believe to be， the best theodicy to combat the problem of evil against the existence of the orthodox God of Judaism， Christianity， and Islam。 。。。more

Sian ，

An easy， simple， pleasant read。

J。R。 Coltaine ，

IS THERE A GOD？ is the popular version of Swinburne's THE EXISTENCE OF GOD。 As such， it is a much condensed form of his arguments， which leaves many of his points hanging undeveloped。 This is the nature and necessity of the project。 As a short， popular entryway to Swinburne's arguments this book succeeds。 The prose is dense and at times obscure， but precise。 At 120 pages it merits re-reading。 The afterword is a humble acknowledgement that every argument in this book is debated back and forth in IS THERE A GOD？ is the popular version of Swinburne's THE EXISTENCE OF GOD。 As such， it is a much condensed form of his arguments， which leaves many of his points hanging undeveloped。 This is the nature and necessity of the project。 As a short， popular entryway to Swinburne's arguments this book succeeds。 The prose is dense and at times obscure， but precise。 At 120 pages it merits re-reading。 The afterword is a humble acknowledgement that every argument in this book is debated back and forth in the field of philosophy of religion and has been for a great amount of time。 Hopefully this acknowledgement and the nature of the book itself will allow readers on both sides of the debate to table their objections and hear a succinct case for Theism from one of its foremost thinkers。 。。。more

Jacob O'connor ，

Enjoyed。 I'll look for more from Swinburne。 Notes: （1） recommended by William Lane Craig（2） Nook（3） Swinburne takes the view that God does not know what free agents would do in advance （14）（4） Inanimate vs。 Intentional causation （28）（5） Three possible ultimate explanations （1） materialism （b） Humanism （which is a mixed view， stating that both personal and inanimate factors are at work） （c） Theism （6） Principle of credulity: We ought to believe that things are as they seem to be unless and until Enjoyed。 I'll look for more from Swinburne。 Notes: （1） recommended by William Lane Craig（2） Nook（3） Swinburne takes the view that God does not know what free agents would do in advance （14）（4） Inanimate vs。 Intentional causation （28）（5） Three possible ultimate explanations （1） materialism （b） Humanism （which is a mixed view， stating that both personal and inanimate factors are at work） （c） Theism （6） Principle of credulity: We ought to believe that things are as they seem to be unless and until we have evidence that we are mistaken （140） 。。。more

Jacob Aitken ，

Richard Swinburne doesn’t so much argue for the existence of God。 Rather， he posits God as the only viable cause for the universe。 The intellectual rigor in this book is top-notch。 （There is a reason the New Atheists do not go after Swinburne）。 I will disagree with some of his conclusions at the end， but this is a useful text that is worth your time。GodSwinburne outlines the doctrine of God in its classical terms， though he will balk on issues like eternalism and foreknowledge。 If we say that Go Richard Swinburne doesn’t so much argue for the existence of God。 Rather， he posits God as the only viable cause for the universe。 The intellectual rigor in this book is top-notch。 （There is a reason the New Atheists do not go after Swinburne）。 I will disagree with some of his conclusions at the end， but this is a useful text that is worth your time。GodSwinburne outlines the doctrine of God in its classical terms， though he will balk on issues like eternalism and foreknowledge。 If we say that God is a person/personal being/One God in Three Persons， then we need to have some idea of what a person is。 A person is “an individual with basic powers （to act intentionally）， purposes， and beliefs” （Swinburne 4）。Swinburne begins well by noting that God is an omnipotent， omniscient， and free person （6）。 Further， God can’t do the impossible。 So far so good。 Unfortunately， Swinburne says it is impossible to know what a free creature will do tomorrow （7）。 Omniscience for Swinburne simply means that God knows everything which is logically possible to know。 We’ll come back to this claim。He also rejects divine eternalism。 God， for Swinburne， is everlasting but not timeless。 He does not simultaneously cause the events of 587 B。C。 and 1995 A。D。， since that would interfere with the future free actions of his creatures。 Rather， God exists in each moment of time。 There is an obvious problem: Is God limited by time？ Does God exist outside of time in any way？The rest of the chapter on God is fairly good， especially his defense of divine essentialism （i。e。， God has all of his essential properties necessarily）。How We explain thingsSwinburne argues that the best explanation for an event is:（1） It leads us to expect many and varied events which we observe。（2） What is proposed is simple。（3） It fits well with background knowledge （but only when background knowledge is available）。（4） We would not otherwise expect to find these events。With these criteria， Swinburne argues that only God understood in the classical sense can make sense of the universe。 Materialism cannot， since it can’t explain abstract objects， mental states， etc。 A finite god cannot， since it would need to be explained by something else （hence violating （2） above）。The World and its OrderWhile he gives an unfortunate defense of Darwin， Swinburne does raise some problems for Hawking and Dawkins。 If time is really cyclical， and if， ex hypothesi， we could leave 1995 and eventually come back to 1994， then the following bizarre results entail:* My acting can be the cause of my not acting （64ff）。How the Existence of God Explains the Existence of HumansGood defense of substance dualism。 Substances have properties and particular relations to other substances。 A mental event， as opposed to a material object， is that which the subject has privileged access （72）。AnalysisHis argument for limited omnipotence comes at a high cost。 One response to it is that even on Arminian grounds， models like Middle Knowledge at least attempt to preserve God’s knowledge of future free actions。 I do not hold to MK， but there is a respectable amount of top-level literature making the case。 Swinburne makes no such attempt。But there is an even easier response。 The Bible makes numerous predictions about the future free decisions of moral agents。 Did Mary and Joseph have human freedom？ Yes。 Did Mary freely choose to remain a virgin before Jesus was born？ Yes。 Could it have been otherwise？ It’s hard to imagine that it could have been。 And that’s only one of many。I think we can end on one more interesting angle。 Can God have false beliefs？ Obviously not。 Can God have false beliefs about the future？ I think every theist has to answer no。 However， God appears throughout Scripture to make a number of statements concerning the future， and it is safe to say He at least thinks He has knowledge about them 。。。more

David Haines ，

This book is a shorter， non-philosopher friendly （at least that is his purpose， even though I don't think he quite succeeds in making it entirely non-philosopher friendly）， version of his longer work "The Existence of God"。 It can be read relatively quickly， and is an enjoyable read。 Below is a brief overview of each chapter。 It is an interesting， and short， introduction to Swinburne's general approach to questions related to the existence of God。Spoiler alert: Swinburne argues that God does ind This book is a shorter， non-philosopher friendly （at least that is his purpose， even though I don't think he quite succeeds in making it entirely non-philosopher friendly）， version of his longer work "The Existence of God"。 It can be read relatively quickly， and is an enjoyable read。 Below is a brief overview of each chapter。 It is an interesting， and short， introduction to Swinburne's general approach to questions related to the existence of God。Spoiler alert: Swinburne argues that God does indeed exist。 In chapter 1 he describes his understanding of the type of God which is said， by the major monotheistic religions， to exist。 It should be noted that his description of God bares many similarities to the God of "Open Theism"， as his God is （a） not eternal （in the normal sense of a-temporal）， but temporally everlasting; （b） only omniscient in the sense that God knows everything that can logically be known （but， according to Swinburne， future free contingent actions cannot logically be known， so God can't know them）; （c） God is perfectly good because he easily fulfills the obligations he has towards his creation; （d） God is Simple in the sense that the theory of the existence of such a God is the simplest theory; and so on。 In the second chapter， Swinburne explains how we explain things， by distinguishing between two types of causal explanations （inanimate and personal）。 He goes on to explain how science goes about explaining things via inanimate causality， using 4 criteria for testing theories。 He then applies these criteria to personal causal explanation， and attempts to show that we can use these same criteria to demonstrate personal causal explanation。 He is clearly seeking to show that， all things considered， God is the best explanation for the phenomena we experience in the sensible universe。 In chapter 3 he argues that the simplest explanation of the existence of the physical universe is that a single God created it。 Theism is， for Swinburne， demonstrably simpler， as theory， than either Materialism or Humanism。 In chapter 4 Swinburne provides a variation of the teleological argument （beginning with order and regularity in the observable universe） to show that it is reasonable （more than other theories） to postulate the existence of God。 He first discusses the order and regularity of the universe in general， then the constitution of animate beings。 He finishes by considering some objections。 His essential argument is that the existence of the observed order in the universe requires a higher order theory than those proposed by physics or biology （i。e。 - evolution， string theory， etc。）。 As an explanation is needed for the laws of these theories。 The simplest higher order explanation， according to Swinburne， is that God created the universe such that the laws of evolution brought about the universe （a form of theistic evolution）。 In Chapter 5， Swinburne presents a variation of the well-known argument from reason， which he uses both to refute materialism and to argue for the existence of God。 In the sixth chapter Swinburne responds to the problem of evil primarily through a free-will defence。 Some of his views， here， are a little bit off the wall， though he does appear to make his point clearly enough。 He deals with moral and natural evils， and briefly discusses animal suffering （though， I think， in an an entirely convincing manner）。 Finally， in chapter 7， Swinburne argues that though it is generally conceded that if God exists， then miracles are prone to occur; it also seems plausible to argue that if there is sufficient evidence that miracles have occurred， then God exists。 He also considers reasons for divine revelation， and looks at the question of personal religious experiences。 。。。more

Caleb Ontiveros ，

Like "Was Jesus God？"， "Is There a God？" is a good intro and overview to Swinburne's more detailed work。 Like "Was Jesus God？"， "Is There a God？" is a good intro and overview to Swinburne's more detailed work。 。。。more

Curby Graham ，

One of the finest short introductions to the question: Is There a God？ This is an excellent resource for either a believer who wants to learn more or a skeptic who is willing to hear from the other side。 His chapter on why God would permit evil is particularly well done。 Highly recommended！

Matthew ，

A useful introduction to a series of complex arguments in favor of the existence of God。

Rick Sam ，

This is my first book by Richard Swinburne。 As he finishes in the epilogue， he was disappointed and so am I。 Why？ I didn't learn anything new in this topic。 Is there a God？ Swinburne says， yes because he postulates God as the most simple explanation。 Note that， he doesn't say， you can't explain therefore God， that is simply not what he is claiming。 He says there are three explanations。 a） Materialism b） Humanismc） Theism Under these three， he builds his case using four criteria for justification This is my first book by Richard Swinburne。 As he finishes in the epilogue， he was disappointed and so am I。 Why？ I didn't learn anything new in this topic。 Is there a God？ Swinburne says， yes because he postulates God as the most simple explanation。 Note that， he doesn't say， you can't explain therefore God， that is simply not what he is claiming。 He says there are three explanations。 a） Materialism b） Humanismc） Theism Under these three， he builds his case using four criteria for justification。 Ergo， he takes Theism to be necessary for Science at all。 I was surprised to find Swinburne's different theological views。 He agrees with darwinian evolution， （the view that life evolved through natural selection）。 He says it could be possible that God had used it， but when it comes to consciousness。 There's where， materialists are hitting a brick wall。 Interesting， isn't it？ --Deus Vult--Gottfried 。。。more

Arioua Abdallah ，

In this book， the well-known theologian and philosopher Richard Swinburne makes a case for God in a condensed way by presenting some basic arguments。 This book is a summarized and very short version of his known trilogy （The Coherence of Theism， The Existence of God， and Faith and Reason）。 What I liked the most about this book is its clarity and fairness。 The book is only about whether God exists or not。 Neither Atheism nor any of its protagonists is mocked or ridiculed。 He presents an intriguin In this book， the well-known theologian and philosopher Richard Swinburne makes a case for God in a condensed way by presenting some basic arguments。 This book is a summarized and very short version of his known trilogy （The Coherence of Theism， The Existence of God， and Faith and Reason）。 What I liked the most about this book is its clarity and fairness。 The book is only about whether God exists or not。 Neither Atheism nor any of its protagonists is mocked or ridiculed。 He presents an intriguing way of defining God。 He starts from God being omnipotent and omniscient and completely free。 Then he proceeds in building on these axioms to infer other divine qualities。 He also responds to the claim that it is impossible for someone to be omnipotent or/and omniscient。 The book handles other issues like the problem of evil， God being the ultimate explanation that explains every thing， etc。 I really recommend this book for its neutrality and clarity。 。。。more

Daniel ，

It's hard to expect too much from a short book， but it is a dry read， which wasn't totally a surprise。 Swinburne offers some fascinating insights and arguments in a short space and it is worth reading。 It's hard to expect too much from a short book， but it is a dry read， which wasn't totally a surprise。 Swinburne offers some fascinating insights and arguments in a short space and it is worth reading。 。。。more

John Martindale ，

This book by Swinburne is definitely easy reading， I do kind of wonder the attempt to summarize and make things really simple resulted in a certain parts striking the readership as a bit contrived， questionable and unbelievable。 I dunno， I would need to read his more academic works to compare。 I did like the book overall and occasionally I was excited to read a distinction or some point made that I never heard anyone else make， or that I myself had some to from personal reflections。 I appreciate This book by Swinburne is definitely easy reading， I do kind of wonder the attempt to summarize and make things really simple resulted in a certain parts striking the readership as a bit contrived， questionable and unbelievable。 I dunno， I would need to read his more academic works to compare。 I did like the book overall and occasionally I was excited to read a distinction or some point made that I never heard anyone else make， or that I myself had some to from personal reflections。 I appreciate that Swinburne recognized the absurdity of maintaining that God is frozen in some static “Timeless” state where everything is an every present NOW。 Swinburne acknowledges that God cannot do what is logically impossible and the future which doesn't exist isn't there to know， people who insist that God must know what isn't there to know， are like those who insist that God must be able to make a rock heavy then he can lift and make himself both exist and not exist at the same time。 God knowing all there is to know， means all future events that are certainties in His mind， are the things He predetermines to do and all other future events which he doesn't predetermine， He knows them for what they are—possibilities。On the issue of morality Swinburne wrote “Moral truths are clearly moral truths， whether or not there is a God: It is surely wrong to torture children for fun whether or not there is a God” I must disagree with him on this。 If there is no God and man is merely an evolved animal， then man could have evolved to think it was good in some cases to torture children for fun and there wouldn't be any reason that it was wrong if culture accepted it。 We see things happening in the animal kingdom that causes us to gasp with horror， but we wouldn't say these animals that rape， eat their young， kill for entertainment are evil， rather they just behaving how blind and pitiless evolution determined them to behave， so are humans morally superior because they evolved differently？ If so by whose standard？ So sure， what if human “animals” evolved a sense of “I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine” and this really is the basis for reciprocal altruism， they could have just as well evolved a different sense that would have also had survival benefits。 Even if we evolved certain “moral” prejudices， and are therefore， deluded into sticking the oughts and ought nots on our own subjective prejudices， doesn't mean there is any such thing as moral truths。 With no God， there simply cannot be any absolute moral Oughts or Ought Nots， the moral sense is an accident of evolution and it is forever in flux and shaped by the ever changing culture。 I think it is more reasonable to say the basis of morality is the the very goodness of God， the basis of duty is the commands that flow from the One who is Love。Swinburne made some interesting points。 He mentioned “God cannot create the best of all possible worlds， for there can be no such world—any would can be improved by adding more persons to it， and no doubt in plenty of other ways as well。 So what does God's perfect goodness amount to？ Not that he does all possible good acts—that is no logically possible。 Presumably that he fulfills his obligations， does no bad acts， and preforms very many good acts。” I liked Swinburne's chapter on the two different kinds of Explanation， which was the reason why I bought and read the book。 He writes “When dynamite causes a particular explosion， it does do because it has， among its properties， the power to do so and the liability to exercise that power under certain conditions—when it is ignites at a certain temperature and pressure。 It has to cause the explosion under those conditions; it has no option， and there is nothing purposive about it doing so。 But the dynamite was ignited because， say， a terrorist causes the ignition， because he had the power to do so， the belief that doing so would cause an explosion。 He chose to cause the ignition; he could have done otherwise。 Here we have two kinds of explanation。 The first， in terms of powers and liabilities， is inanimate explanation。 The second， in terms of powers， beliefs， and purposes， is intentions， or—as I shall call it in the future—personal explanation。”Atheist believing there is no God， must believe that humans late in the history of the universe， due to unexplained natural laws， acting on inanimate matter that popped out of nothingness， though unguided and meaningless， accidentally evolved consciousness， mind， reason and the powers of acting and shaping the natural world （that is if they don't claim freewill and consciousness is an illusion as some do）。 This means they are forced to think that outside of humanity， there is only inanimate explanation。 But if we suppose there is a God， we are then free to acknowledge both inanimate and personal explanations and can make much more sense of the universe， why there is something rather than nothing and the fine tuning of the cosmos， the mathematical and logical aspects of it， the information， complexity， beauty and rationality， etc。。。Swinburne is a theistic evolutionist and I am not， but I did like this point he made “Darwin showed that the universe is a machine for making animals and humans。 But it is misleading to gloss that correct point in the way that Richard Dawkins does: 'our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries， but。。。 it is a mystery no longer。。。 Darwin and Wallace solved it' ）The Blind Watchmaker， p。xiii）。 It is misleading because it ignores the interesting question of whether the existence and operation of that machine， the factors which Darwin （and Wallace） cited to explain 'our existence'， themselves have a further explanation。 I have argued that the principles of rational inquiry suggest that they do。 Darwin gave a correct explanation of the existence of animals and humans; but not， I think， an ultimate one。 The watch may have been made with the aid of some blind screwdrivers （or even a blind watchmaking machine）， but they were guided by a watchmaker with some very clear sight” On the problem on evil， Swinburne wrote “in order to have a choice between good and evil， agents need already a certain depravity， in the sense of a system of desires for that they correctly believe to be evil。。。 Depravity is itself an evil which is necessary condition of greater good。 It makes possible a choice made seriously and deliberately， because made in the face of genuine alternative。 I stress that， according to the free-will defense， it is a natural possibility of moral evil which is the necessary condition of the great good， not the actual evil itself。”I could see how one could form this conclusion from the story of Adam and Eve。 God put a tree in the garden and said don't eat from it。 He could have made the fruit smell like poop and look like rotting meat with maggots crawling in it。 But instead， we see Eve saw the fruit was desirable and she also wanted the wisdom it promised。 So not only was there the possibility， but the evil option was compelling， there was an inner desire for it。 But does this mean that Adam and Eve are to be considered to already be depraved？For there to be truly a choice， must evil be as or more attractive than the good？ If I offer my kids Brussels spouts or ice-cream， I am giving them a choice， but I know they'll likely go with the ice-cream。 Why couldn't God have made the good like ice-cream and the bad like Brussels spouts？ How does this truly remove choice？Some of Swinburne's thoughts on Miracles and Religious Experiences was good。 But this review is a bit lengthy， so I'll wrapped up。 。。。more

Eric Black ，

A largely unconvincing and tedious book mercifully more brief than The Coherence of Theism

Walker Wright ，

**1/2

Gort ，

Repellendus nihil vitae dolor rerum deleniti。 Delectus eos cupiditate sit odio impedit。 Accusamus voluptas amet consequuntur sit odio non sit。 Rerum et quia qui。 Occaecati distinctio ratione vel soluta nisi accusantium。

Alan ，

Swinburne is a highly respected Christian scholar who is deserving of his reputation of being a reliable scholar that any Christian can count on for valuable insights。 I enjoyed his explanation of God's properties as it was so precisely articulated and coherent along with his insights on the mind/body issue。 He largely seems to be an advocate for open theism and theistic evolution， which I find to be untenable on a biblical worldview。 Nevertheless， I still gained valuable insights despite my dis Swinburne is a highly respected Christian scholar who is deserving of his reputation of being a reliable scholar that any Christian can count on for valuable insights。 I enjoyed his explanation of God's properties as it was so precisely articulated and coherent along with his insights on the mind/body issue。 He largely seems to be an advocate for open theism and theistic evolution， which I find to be untenable on a biblical worldview。 Nevertheless， I still gained valuable insights despite my disagreement with him in these areas。 Highly recommended。 。。。more

Ashish Jaituni ，

A very good book！ Immensely readable， very well written。 Better arguments presented and a good case for God。 Richard Swinburne is certainly one of the best Christian Philosophers of the 20th century。 Except for 2-3 places where I don't agree with Swinburne's argument or find it weak， he does a great job of presenting a case for the existence of God。 A very good book！ Immensely readable， very well written。 Better arguments presented and a good case for God。 Richard Swinburne is certainly one of the best Christian Philosophers of the 20th century。 Except for 2-3 places where I don't agree with Swinburne's argument or find it weak， he does a great job of presenting a case for the existence of God。 。。。more

Manny ，

Right now， there should be a fascinating dialogue going on between the science and faith communities。。。 but there isn't。 It's so frustrating！ You'd think it would be impossible to stop it; as you can see in recent books like Rees's Just Six Numbers， Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape and Hawking's The Grand Design， many scientists are happy to agree that the universe looks as though it has been designed to make life possible。 Susskind's book is subtitled "String theory and the illusion of Intellige Right now， there should be a fascinating dialogue going on between the science and faith communities。。。 but there isn't。 It's so frustrating！ You'd think it would be impossible to stop it; as you can see in recent books like Rees's Just Six Numbers， Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape and Hawking's The Grand Design， many scientists are happy to agree that the universe looks as though it has been designed to make life possible。 Susskind's book is subtitled "String theory and the illusion of Intelligent Design"; Hawking's has a chapter called "The Apparent Miracle"。 Needless to say， a large part of the faith-based community has been telling us the same thing for a long time。 So there's an obvious question that needs to be answered: is the universe designed， or isn't it？ You'd expect a bit more discussion。I am disappointed to say that no such thing is happening。 The scientists have all decided that the one explanation which makes sense is a combination of the Multiverse and the Anthropic Principle。 There are a zillion possible universes， of almost any kind you can imagine; a very small number support life， and since we're alive we're in one of them。 We look around and think we see design， but it's pure chance。 They won't even discuss the possibility that it actually is design。 On the other side， you have the faith-based people， like Francis Collins （The Language of God）， and this guy。 They look at the Multiverse argument for about two pages and dismiss it。 It looks like design， they tell us， so， duh， it probably is。Swinburne wants to establish the probable existence of God and， really， he doesn't have much more going for him than the Argument from Design。 He spends a chapter talking about souls （very unconvincingly， IMHO）， and he spends another arguing that God could be good and still allow evil， because it's an inevitable consequence of free will （I thought this part was quite well done）。 He waffles for twenty pages about miracles without ever really saying very much。 But if the design part of the argument holds， it's enough。 The rest is just due diligence。So how credible is the Design argument？ Having finished the book， I know about as much as I did when I started。 The most infuriating thing is that both sides invariably quote Ockham's Razor and claim it supports their case。 Guys， I know you are all super-smart and have published books on the subject and get invited to prestigious conferences， but may I be so bold as to offer you a tiny piece of advice？ Ockham's Razor probably isn't going to help a lot here。 Leave it alone and develop some other lines of attack。 。。。more

Tom ，

Not a bad introduction on one of the more serious and intelligent Christian apologetics out there。 I still have major reservations with how he puts forward some of his arguments and the fact that he goes very little into other competing religious theories i。e。 polytheism， or doesn't at all with deistic interpretations。Still， he gives some compelling arguments which made me think more about my own position as an atheist。 Not a bad introduction on one of the more serious and intelligent Christian apologetics out there。 I still have major reservations with how he puts forward some of his arguments and the fact that he goes very little into other competing religious theories i。e。 polytheism， or doesn't at all with deistic interpretations。Still， he gives some compelling arguments which made me think more about my own position as an atheist。 。。。more

Eli ，

There is definitely some good points Swinburne makes in this book regarding epistemic justification， and I think they are valuable for all to read。 But overall the book is nothing special， and Swinburne gives away too much， claiming that evolution is true， and that life is basically just about being a good person。 This book， I would say， is not distinctively Christian， though Swinburne rights as one and for the Christian God。

Rafael Reyes III ，

Although I do not fully agree with Swinburne's final outcome， I cannot deny his sound methodology and reasoning in getting to his position。 He speaks with simplicity yet profoundness that most can read and understand。 Although I do not fully agree with Swinburne's final outcome， I cannot deny his sound methodology and reasoning in getting to his position。 He speaks with simplicity yet profoundness that most can read and understand。 。。。more

Alan Hughes ，

Is There a God？ offers a powerful response to modern doubts about the existence of God。 It may seem today that the answers to all fundamental questions lie in the province of science， and that the scientific advances of the twentieth century leave little room for God。 Cosmologists have rolled back their theories to the moment of the Big Bang; the discovery of DNA reveals the key to life; the theory of evolution explains the development of life--and with each new discovery or development， it seem Is There a God？ offers a powerful response to modern doubts about the existence of God。 It may seem today that the answers to all fundamental questions lie in the province of science， and that the scientific advances of the twentieth century leave little room for God。 Cosmologists have rolled back their theories to the moment of the Big Bang; the discovery of DNA reveals the key to life; the theory of evolution explains the development of life--and with each new discovery or development， it seems that we are closer to a complete understanding of how things are。 For many people， this gives strength to the belief that God is not needed to explain the universe; that religious belief is not based on reason; and that the existence of God is， intellectually， a lost cause。 Richard Swinburne， one of the most distinguished philosophers of religion today， argues that on the contrary， science provides good grounds for belief in God。 Why is there a universe at all？ Why is there any life on Earth？ How is it that discoverable scientific laws operate in the universe？ Swinburne uses these methods of scientific reasoning to argue that the best answers to these questions are given by the existence of God。 The picture of the universe that science gives us is completed by God。 Powerful， modern， and accessible， Is There a God？ is must reading for anyone interested in an intelligent and approachable defence of the existence of God。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Is There a God?

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Is There a God?&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Is There a God?&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0