Top Ten (Failed) Proofs For God's Existence

This is a ten part series debunking the claims of Bob Dutko.
Link to the ten part playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzEbpcUf7rE&list=PL24169BF14A977E08
-
Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzEbpcUf7rE&feature=youtu.be

In summary: "why something". "Because Super Something" - Is not logical and explains absolutely nothing. Assuming there is a beginning, is just that, an assumption. Space-time-energy is more likely eternal with defined periods of expansions and concentrations of energy. What is more likely to intrinsically and eternally exist? A fluctuating field of Space-time or Supreme Super Consciousness?

Conservation Of Energy does not suggest a creator. It simply means energy changes forms in a closed observable system. To say this is a universal law across the entire universe is a bit of an arrogant assumption as this is untestable or not falsifiable. We now know vacuum space is bubbling with quantum activity with quarks popping in and out of existence. It is quite reasonable to suspect that a lone photon will eventually collide and absorb into vacuum energy after billions or trillions of light years.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR6eldTd060&feature=youtu.be

This argument is about the second law of thermodynamics (entropy and the balance of energy in a closed system). First, the universe is not a closed system. The growth of complexity would be an opposing force to entropy, it not like there's only one law or force in the entire universe. Evolution of complexity from particles to atoms to molecules to life are all patterns that emerged from random energy. The natural physics of these particular patterns happened to intrinsically survive entropy. Only patterns that are beneficial to survive entropy, will last and survive entropy.

 

Or God is subject to the second law of thermodynamics, so even if he does or did exist; he no longer has his Mojo?


Hotwater

 

What evidence is there that there is an opposing force? What is random about energy? These are simply linguistic characterizations not elements of the periodic table. Organization and entropy are not inherently opposing forces and there is not what happened but what happens, they are complementary poles of a spectrum or wave length. Patterns happen to survive? There is a pattern to emergence from simple to more complex. That the growth of complexity is an opposing force to entropy as a rule is a statement that one law or force exists in the entire universe so it is exactly like that and you contradict yourself.

 

Thank you for the links here, relaxx......Bob Dutko...yikes.....People like him are dangerous to the uneducated and unthinking masses.....

I like the theory that the big bang began with our universe here, because two other universes bumped into each other and in doing so, created our universe.....so many universes....like tiny bubbles filling up an entire ocean.......

I do not believe in a creator of all of this.

i find it arrogant for anyone to claim to really know, though.

 

Is this attacking a straw man? Bob Dutko is a right-wing evangelical talk show host celebrity who formerly worked as National Press Secretary for the Christian Coalition of America under Pat Robertson. If he has any academic background in science or even theology or philosophy at all, I haven't been able to find any evidence of it. He's learned enough science to snow his following of undereducated True Believers with shopworn arguments that real scientists and theologians gave up long ago. Basically he's a kind of evangelical Rush Limbaugh, who relies heavily on bluster and bravado. It's impossible to "prove" (or disprove) God, although some of the classic arguments might provide reasons to bet on one or another possibility. The OP's video refuting Dutko is itself a form of propaganda targeting lame arguments to score points. The Big Bang theory, attributed to Catholic priest and physicist George LeMaitre, posits the sudden appearance of the universe from a high density state 13.8 billion years ago. Curious humans naturally want to know how this happened. Was it a one-time event or a recurrent phenomenon that has and possibly still is creating other universes. Intriguing cosmological theories have been put forward, but so far they lie in the realm of metaphysics, lacking empirical validation or refutation. Krauss's Universe from Nothing, much balleyhooed by Dawkins and Kraus, rests on the notion that nothing=no mass. But a quantum vacuum occurring in spacetime and obeying physical laws is not exactly nothing, and spacetime and those laws probably didn't exist before the bang. The narrator on our video complains that Christians "like to insult us", but Krauss's book is riddled with gratuitous insults to the intelligence of Christians, as is the "Afterword" by Dawkins, which compares Krauss's book favorably to the Origin of the Species. Since these men, unlike Dutko, really are scientists, they should know better. That mindless, purposeless forces could result in the integrated complexity of our universe and minds able to comprehend it seems an amazing phenomenon. If some of us think it seems too good to be true, please bear with us.

 

Modern cosmology strains your credulity, therefore it seems a wise choice to believe an ancient text which holds that the universe was created by the father of a jewish carpenter?

 

curious, where does it say that Jesus was a carpenter?

 

He was a tekton. Might have been a carpenter, a mason or some kind of manual laborer.

 

Are those the choices? Modern cosmology doesn't seem to have reached consensus on the matter, and is still largely speculative. Do quantum vacuum fluctuations or the wave function of the universe satisfy you on the issue? As for Biblical accounts: no, I don't believe that scripture has anything meaningful to say about how the universe actually came to be. It's not a science textbook, but it does contain some interesting metaphors bearing on meaning and morality. Relaxx thinks "It is quite reasonable to suspect that a lone photon will eventually collide and absorb into vacuum energy after billions or trillions of light years." I'd say it's not unreasonable. Note the level of evidence implicit in the statement: reasonable suspicion. I think that's quite appropriate for the occasion. I use it too. Considering the "proofs" of God one by one doesn't "prove" anything, but putting them together may raise a "reasonable suspicion" (or at least not an unreasonable one) that there might be "Something Big Out There" besides vacuum.

 

I've never met a 'christian' who believed god was not omnipotent and the bible has nothing to say about the origin of the universe and is just a metaphorical bunch of stuff about morality. That seems to be straining the definition of what it means to be a christian in my opinion. Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth, whatever profession he had, was God incarnate? Rose from the dead after crucifixion? Performed miracles throughout his life? Will return one day to end the world and judge the souls of mankind?

 

I call myself a Christian because I try to guide my life, as much as possible, by the teachings and example of Jesus. My idea of Christianity is so unlike that of Dutko that it might as well be considered a different religion. I feel far more rapport with atheists and agnostics than with Christian fundamentalists. Some of my fellow Progressive Christians prefer to say they aren't Christians but are followers of Jesus, and I can appreciate their point of view. I'd do the same in a social context where it wouldn't cause confusion or start an argument. On this forum, and elsewhere, I've used the label "Christian agnostic" for myself, but it did seem to cause confusion, and wasn't quite accurate. Agnostics seem to sit on the sidelines, while I prefer a more active commitment based on informed, intuitive risk-taking. God is a motivator of human action--the summation of human idealism and an expression of whatever is responsible for the laws of physics. I certainly differ from the official doctrinal definitions of what is a Christian, and there are lots of others like me. I met with a group of Progressive Christians last night to discuss a book by Bishop Spong, Liberating the Gospels: Reading the New Testament Through Jewish Eyes. I'm not nearly as radical as the good bishop--but close. I do believe that there really was an historical Jesus who was crucified by the Romans in the early first century. that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi and hassid who challenged the Temple Establishment and seems to have preached a gospel of peace, love and understanding. He was a good Jew, as were His disciples, and like many Jews of the time preached an apocalyptic gospel of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God to replace the old order and bring about a new one. I don't believe he was God in the usual sense of a supernatural being one with Yahweh, nor do I think He did, nor did his disciples in the Jerusalem Church, although they thought he was God's adopted son. I think of God and the divine as the felt presence of a Higher Power, and accept the John Gospel's definition of God as Love. Jesus preached a Gospel of Love that had the potential to solve many of the world's problems if people follow it. Christianity, as we know it today, is the product of a remarkable metamorphosis of memes, begun by Paul and the Gospel writers, and institutionalized by the early Catholic church and emperor Constantine. The result was a religion that has proved its viability as the world's largest religion, but also proved it had all to human weaknesses by departing from Jesus' teachings and example. I think the religion would be utterly unrecognizable to Jesus and his followers.

Neither I nor my Bible-studying friends believe in most of the bizarre doctrines promulgated at Nicaea: the Trinity, the virgin birth, miracles, a literal resurrection of the body, life everlasting, etc. These formulas are the products of church politics and led to much violence and bloodshed in the name of the Prince of Peace. The Jesus I believe in is the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels, especially Luke who preached a gospel of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, championed the poor and oppressed and society's rejects, and called for non-judgmental love and forgiveness for everyone.. Despite the doctrinal and institutional nonsense, Jesus is alive and well (metaphorically) and living in the hearts of believers through the power of the Holy Spirit (powerful insight ). Jesus taught us we could identify the true and the false prophets by their fruits. The Latter Day Pharisees who loudly proclaim their Christianity and condemn anyone who doesn't follow their version of it are false prophets whose bitter fruits bring misery to the world. I look up to Pope Francis as a leading example of what I consider to be a true Christian. In these beliefs, I'm not different from a large body of Progressive Christians who continue to be active in mainline Protestant churches and seminaries.

 

The narrator even seemed to give some slight insults in the second video, which I thought was kind of in bad taste after calling out Dutko.

I've seen a few Krauss lectures on youtube, I agree at times Dawkings and him can make some disparging remarks towards religious people. In Krauss's defense, there was one lecture I saw where he mentions why he presents stuff in the way he does and it is kind of a response to that "they should know better" notion. Krauss sees the common perception of scientists as that people think they should be in the lab only and not seen, nor heard, just faceless, data crunching beings. So Krauss mentions giving lectures, and perhaps books, as an opportunity to be personable and express defined views.

I think that's a worthy reason to justify some of his ideas, it seems pretty accurate to me, he made the remark prior to Degrasse Tyson rebooting Cosmos if I recall correctly, so it was pretty accurate at the time, in that their weren't many scientists, out in the public eye. However, I can see in doing so, some may be skeptical in regards to bias in the scientific work he presents.

 

Thank you for sharing your views Okiefreak, it was very illuminating.

I guess you being christian was as confusing to me as me being buddhist would be confusing to a tibetian buddhist; even though i identify (loosely and informally) as buddhist, i don't subscribe to any of the supernatural claims, and take the metaphysical ones with a pound of salt and as utility dictates, and attempt to rise above sectarianism.

But there's a rub . . . are we not promoting sectarianism when we hold these labels?

 

Sectarian is a label. Labels are words we use to describe conditions. Sectarian is denoting or concerning a sect or sects. A sect is a philosophical or political group. "Progressive christian" when talking about a group of familiars, is a sectarian moniker. I don't identify with any group or take oaths of fealty and regard all contact as personal relations. All the same sectarian is not an inherently bad word but it may affect how you relate to other groups.

 

I pretty much agree with the Dope on this. I use labels as a last resort, to clarify my position, but try to keep an open mind on other points of view. "Progressive Christians" aren't a church or a club. We have no rituals, handshakes, oaths, or creeds to define us. It's not like the Smothers brothers My Old Man song, where I feel compelled to wear a Progressive Christian collar, shoes, hat and raincoat and read the Progressive Christian News. I think your version of Buddhism may be more in keeping with that of Siddhartha Gautama than the Tibetan variety. If the issue is whether use of the label "Christian" is sectarian, that's debatable. I use it because I think Jesus points to a set of values and beliefs which the world desperately needs and which are seldom followed even among those who claim to. Buddhism comes close, but I'm partial to Jesus, and actually can have both, since Buddhism isn't exclusive. Christianity used to be called other things: Nazerenes and "the Way". But using those doesn't solve the label problem, "Nazerene' is already taken by an ultra-fundamentalist sect, and "the Way" sounds pretty exclusivistic and cult-like. Does using the label "Christian" promote fundamentalist versions, or does it undermine them by challenging them from within? Sam Harris thinks the former, I think the Tibetan Buddhists and the Bible Baptists would say the latter.

 

Ok, but religion is everywhere dude, our society is built on it, our governments pander to it, and 80% of the world subscribes to one. This isn't a strange fixation we have; it's more strange that you are so disconnected from everything that you don't understand how important and prevalent religions and religious thought are.

 

I grew up being being sent to Catholic school. I think i know a thing or two about how prevalent religions are in our society. I've also taken religious studies in college, and have done my fair share of studies in my own time. And it's more like 30 something percent. Not 80 percent. Don't get 'sloppy' with your words like you always accuse me of.

And i doubt that Science isn't also completely pandered to by our government and its policy money-making schemes...?

And i actually do have an understanding of religions and religious thought. Which is why I'm not running around trying to get rid of them. I see their importance, despite that i find them to be rather Spiritually immature.

You, on the other hand, are seemingly on a mission to convert anyone out of religion, because you feel as justified as the Catholic who's on a mission to convert anyone to religion. So you actually are a reflection of the religious freaks.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=percent+of+world+which+is+religious