1. Don’t Criticize what you don’t understand. I have been following this principle in my approach to Richard Swinburne. For more than a year now I have studied his case for God in The Coherence of Theism and The Existence of God. As an atheist the objective of finding significant problems in his case for … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 10

Let’s take a brief break from conditional probabilities and probability calculations involving Bayes’ theorem. Much of Chapter 7 of The Existence of God (EOG) consists of general points, objections, and replies to objections, along the lines that one would expect in a more traditional philosophical discussion about cosmological arguments. I’m not clear on how some … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 9

I have managed to write seven posts describing and explaining Swinburne’s case for God, but have not yet discussed a single specific argument for or against God. So, it is now time to examine an actual specific argument. (In my defense, the first 132 pages of EOG are introductory, and I have spared you many … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 8

The first premise of Swinburne’s case for God makes a fairly modest claim:1. Based on evidence other than religious experience, the existence of God is not very improbable. Because the expression “not very improbable” is a bit vague, I argued for the following clarification of premise (1), in my last post:1b. Where e is the … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 7

Swinburne’s case for God (in The Existence of God, 2nd ed.) can be summed up this way:1. Based on evidence other than religious experience, the existence of God is not very improbable.2. If based on evidence other than religious experience, the existence of God is not very improbable, then the evidence from religious experience (in … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 6

Swinburne makes use of Bayes’ Theorem in presenting most of the a posteriori arguments for and against God in The Existence of God (EOG), and he makes significant use of it in summing up his case for God. Bayes’ Theorem: P (h I e & k) = P(e I h & k) x P(h I … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 5

Swinburne makes use of Bayes’ Theorem in presenting most of the a posteriori arguments for and against God in The Existence of God (EOG), and he makes significant use of it in summing up his case for God. Although his argument can be presented without using Bayes’ Theorem, I want to stick closely to Swinburne’s … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 4

Before we look at the a posteriori arguments that Swinburne presents and evaluates in The Existence of God (EOG), I should briefly describe his views on a priori arguments for and against the existence of God.In Chapter 1 of EOG, Swinburne mentions an assumption that his case for God makes:In reaching my final conclusion about … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 3

Swinburne’s case for God (in The Existence of God, 2nd ed.) can be summed up this way:1. Based on evidence other than religious experience, the existence of God is not very improbable.2. If based on evidence other than religious experience, the existence of God is not very improbable, then the evidence from religious experience (in … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 2

Richard Swinburne summarizes his case for God in the final pages of the final chapter of The Existence of God: …all that my conclusion so far amounts to is that it is something like as probable as not that theism is true, on the evidence so far considered. However, so far in this chapter I … Swinburne’s Case for God – Part 1