"Is There a God?": Notes on the Book by Richard Swinburne (IV/VIII)

For more about what's going on here, see this post.

For those of you who'd like to follow along, this is the book I am reading:
          Swinburne, Richard. Is There a God? Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Chapter IV: How the Existence of God Explains the World and its Order
Summary
     Swinburne explains his personal viewpoint that the simplicity of god as a solution makes it the best possible answer for anyone asking "but why?" past the level of the materialistic existence of sub-atomic particles and their properties. He agrees completely with science on evolution and scientific theories of creation (the Big Bang), but denies chance as a possibility for why it all happened because the improbability of things happening the way they did is so high that it simply makes more sense for everything to have been caused by a limitless person with intent, viz., god. Christian Response
     I think the average Christian does not arrive at this conclusion because of repeatedly asking "why?" until there is not more scientific "why." Faith is a big part of Christianity, and I think, at this point, that actually trying to prove the existence of god goes against that faith, that it is a way of saying "the bible is not enough, I need to KNOW." I have never been a Christian, and I am well aware that there are many different kinds of Christians, but I think there is a point where Christian faith says "stop asking." Personal Response

     I was relieved that Swinburne not only addressed but agreed with science. I find his argument unconvincing because he relies on the idea that god is good--I have faith that god is good, but I have no real reason to suppose so. I personally have been very lucky. Others have not been so. Is it my business to know if god is good? Is he? I don't know. In any case, it bothers me that much of his argument relies on certain things being good, and whereas he tells us we need to ask for an ultimate explanation of things, he offers us no ultimate explanation for said things (people, beauty, god) being good other than that it is his personal opinion. You know there's something wrong with his argument when I agree with him and I still don't think he's convincing--clearly not biased.