"The starting points of cosmological arguments are evident facets of experience.
There is no doubt about the truth of statements that report that they hold.
It seems to me equally evident that no argument from any of such starting points to the existence of God is deductively valid.
For, if an argument from, for example, the existence of a complex physical universe to the existence of God were deductively valid, then it would be incoherent to assert that a complex physical universe exists and God does not exist.
There would be a hidden contradiction buried in such co-assertions.
Now, the only way to prove a proposition to be incoherent is to deduce from it an obviously incoherent proposition (for example, a self-contradictory proposition),[1] but, notoriously, attempts to derive obviously incoherent propositions from such co-assertions have failed through the commission of some elementary logical error.
I argue for this claim about how incoherence is to be proved in The Coherence of Theism (Clarendon Press, 1993), ch. 3. I argue also that the main way to prove the coherence of a claim is to spell out in an obviously coherent way one way in which it could be true—that is, one obviously coherent conjunction of propositions that entail the claim."
Here is an exposition from AI-bot comparing Kant with Swinburne re the Cosmological Argument:
Explanation 1:
Swinburne argues:
· We can easily observe and accept things like the existence of the universe (starting points of cosmological arguments).
· However, no argument starting from such observations can deduce God's existence in a way that makes denying God impossible (deductively valid).
· If such an argument existed, believing in the universe while also denying God would be like declaring a statement and its opposite true at the same time (incoherent).
· Attempts to show this incoherence by pointing out contradictions have failed due to logical errors.
Kant argued:
· Reason can be divided into practical and speculative. Practical reason guides our actions, while speculative reason tries to prove things like the existence of God.
· Speculative reason cannot reach God because it relies on categories like space and time, which only apply to our experience of the world.
· Attempts to prove God using arguments like the cosmological or ontological argument fail because they involve applying these categories to something beyond our experience.
Similarities:
· Both Swinburne and Kant agree that no purely rational argument can deduce God's existence in a flawless way.
· Both highlight the limitations of using our worldly concepts to grasp something outside our realm of experience.
Differences:
· Swinburne focuses on the logical structure of arguments and points out the lack of a deductively valid one for God's existence.
· Kant focuses on the limitations of speculative reason itself and argues that its categories aren't suitable for proving God.
While the approaches differ, the overall conclusion is similar: deduced proof of God's existence remains elusive.
In essence, both Swinburne and Kant remind us that while logic and reason are powerful tools, they may not be all we need to prove or disprove the existence of a being like God.
Explanation 2 - Not all Rectangles are Square:
1. "No argument from starting points to God's existence is deductively valid."
Here, Swinburne is saying that even if the starting point of an argument (like the existence of the universe) is true, it doesn't guarantee the conclusion (God exists) must be true.
Think of it like this: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Just because the universe exists (rectangle), it doesn't automatically mean God exists (square).
2. "If the argument were deductively valid, it would be incoherent to say the universe exists and God doesn't."
This is just an example illustrating the point above. If the argument were deductively valid, saying the universe exists and God doesn't would be like saying a square isn't a rectangle – a logical contradiction. But since, according to Swinburne, no such deductively valid argument exists, he doesn't see saying "universe exists, God doesn't" as contradictory.
Think of it like different paths, not one single ladder. The cosmological argument is one path to God's existence, but it might not be the only one (and might not be deductively valid). So, just because it doesn't work for Swinburne doesn't mean he finds that statement ("universe exists, God doesn't") inherently contradictory.
Swinburne is a theist, so he believes in God based on reasons beyond just deductive arguments. He thinks the idea of God is coherent and has personal and probabilistic arguments for God's existence, which he explores in his book.
Philosophy often deals with nuanced arguments and positions. Swinburne's point is that while he believes in God and finds the concept coherent, he doesn't see arguments like the cosmological argument as a definitive proof based purely on logic and experience.
Swinburne is a theist, so he believes in God based on reasons beyond just deductive arguments. He thinks the idea of God is coherent and has personal and probabilistic arguments for God's existence
