Top Ten (Failed) Proofs for God's Existence
6.45
Ratings: 6.45/10 from 133
users.
A ten-part series examining Christian apologist and radio talk show host Bob Dutko's Top 10 Proofs for the Existence of God. There are many failed arguments for God's existence but there is one which is fundamental to them all. This is the Argument from Ignorance. Take virtually any aspect of our natural world that we don't fully understand and you'll find someone claiming God is at the end of that dimly-lit tunnel. In his reasoning, Bob uses some of the following arguments:
- Shifting the Burden of Proof - I know God exists. If you disagree, prove otherwise. Oh you say you can't prove God doesn't exist? That's because you know he does!
- Argument from Popularity - The vast majority of the world believes in God. This supports the universal truth that God is real, otherwise it makes no sense that so many people would believe.
- The Transcendental Argument - God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined). Existence in reality is better than existence in one's imagination. God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).
- Argument from Coercion - You must believe in God/Jesus. It's your only hope for salvation. We are all doomed if we don't accept Jesus as our personal savior. It says so in the Bible. If you want to live forever and avoid suffering, you must accept God.
- First Cause Argument - Everything that exists in our world is the result of some sort of "first cause" which brought about its existence. Therefore, there must have been a force which created the universe. That "first cause" is what we call God. Also known as Cosmological Argument.
- Argument from Authority - God is real because the Bible (or whatever sacred text you believe in) says so. Why would so many people write so much about God if it wasn't true?
- Argument from Personal Experience - I know god exists because I can feel him. I know it in my heart; he talks to me; I feel his strength and existence flow through every fiber of my being.
- Argument from Improbability - The second law of thermodynamics says matter inevitably becomes entropic (spreads out in chaos) and this defies the observation on Earth where we see, things becoming more organized. Therefore God is responsible.
- Pascal's Wager - It is a "safe bet" to believe in God just in case he is real. What's the harm? If you believe and he doesn't exist, you don't lose anything, but if you don't believe and he does exist, you lose big time.
- Argument from Design - If you found a watch on the ground, you never met the watchmaker, but you know from its design, the beauty of it; the way each piece was intricately designed to work together, that this watch had a creator. Theists point to the human body; the precise way each of our organs work with each other and claim it's the most amazing "creation" of all, and surely there was some sort of creator behind it.
You can be a very nice person help the poor and needy try to do your best to help the unfortunate people that is good and you don't have to believe any thing what I am saying you can do good to society just like the believer I just don't like the religious people fighting wars for over 2000 years in the name of god it's dose it matter if Jews or Christina or Muslim. They all wrong I rather have no god but pease
We all tired of fighting because of the religions.
The problem with this planet is To many religion.
You the one saying there Is God the God and my job is to challenge you by saying prove it with solid evident not just a book any one can write what they want 2000 years ago you claim your god supports this with physical not just a story from man mad bible.
There is many many god around the glob.
Show me your god. It's a myth so is the catholic.
A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn’t mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it.
A theory will often start out as a hypothesis -- an educated guess to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as a theory.
The theory of evolution, for example, is supported by a plethora of scientific evidence in the form of cosmological, geophysical and archaeological research data, to name just a few relevant fields. Scientists have not only traced the evolution of species through skeletal records, but the earth itself, our solar system, the stars and galaxies can be “dated” through various scientific methods. This evidence appears to track the universe back about 13.7 billion years to a “Big Bang” event.
Whether you believe or don't believe, who cares? The fact that your whole life is engulfed with tearing down something as personal as another human beings belief system depicts a very sad and lonely life filled with hate. Live and let live.
It would be quite simple to flip this around and make a doc about the tired arguments used against God. The "emperor's new clothes" argument would likely be at the top. Science is fashionable. Or are you too dumb to understand it? Another is shown in this doc and many of the comments. I call it the "I know you are but what am I" argument. It is when you accuse the enemy of doing exactly what you do. Like the graphic on fb an athiest friend reposted with two choices, science and made up s*it with a checkmark beside science. The implication is that science is based on logic, facts and not faith. Ironically the more we study the more UNscientific we find science to be.
Over_the_Edge - and, of course, everyone
There is a new video on You Tube entitled "Ken Comfort." You might wish to consider posting a link to it as I'm certain that it will be of general interest.
A ten-part series examining Christian apologist and radio talk show host Bob Dutko’s Top 10 Proofs for the Existence of God.
There are many failed arguments for God’s existence but there is one which is fundamental to them all. This is the Argument from Ignorance. Take virtually any aspect of our natural world that we don’t fully understand and you’ll find someone claiming God is at the end of that dimly-lit tunnel. In his reasoning.
agnoia (??????) ignorance
Given that this ten point plan of [failed] arguments has at its root a claim that ignorance forms the basis for arguments put forward by [many] christians I thought it might be interesting to just ask a question.
What is ignorance?
Atheists believe that everything came from nothing...that complexity came from chaos.....let's stop there. No more is needed. That is such an anti-scientific view of the world that it goes far beyond absurd.
I just can't believe how people actually don't believe in God. It's funny that so many people Google to see if there is one God. TRUST ME THERE IS ONE GOD AND IT WILL TAKE BILLIONS OF YEARS TO TELL U ALL THE PROOFS.
Pascal's Wager shouldn't be on this list. It's not any attempt to prove anything. It's just a reason why someone would choose to believe. And I gotta say out of all these other reasons it's a pretty logical reason.
Brian
"I myself, find it so much easier & comprehensible to believe in a divine creator. It just makes more scientific sense." Just what do you know about science which you ignorantly abase to the level of idiotic faith? However, let's see you put your money where you mouth is and provide a scientific proof for the existence (or non-existence) of a creator and while you're at it, furnish a list of those scientists who claim that the creation of the universe was random. And by the way, there is no controversy about the age of the earth (4.5 billion years) just as there is no controversy about evolution which in your ignorance of science you confound with abiogenesis--and to hell with what your bible says; it is not a science book.
"Religious texts don't necessarily go against science either." What about Genesis 1. The entire creation story (with the possible exception of the sabbath) is scientifically wrong. The story of the flood is scientifically impossible. These are just for starters.
"There has not been a single scientist who has shown any evidence that disproves a divine creator. They can only theorize." Well there's not been a single theist who has shown any evidence proving the existence of a divine creator--and theists do worse than theorize; they try to convert; they start religious wars; they engage in persecution of those who don't believe as they do.
"No one can travel back in time to when 'everything started' and find out the truth." Do you believe mastodons existed? As you can't travel back in time, how do you know?
In short, you are no more than a typical religious ignoramus who claims to employ science as the basis for his misbegotten and ignorant beliefs when he does not know the first thing about it.
"May EDUCATION bless the world!" It certainly hasn't blessed you.
@Brian
i would like to address some of your misunderstandings/claims
1 "There has not been a single scientist who has shown any evidence that disproves a divine creator" science deals with the natural world and natural phenomena a "creator" is supernatural and therefore not a concern of science. also the burden belongs to the person making the claim not the other way around.
2 "science can just as easily show that there was a creator" could you show me this science?
3 "The main argument for atheists against the bible is from genesis." i disagree. the main argument is it contradicts itself/history and logic throughout and is not only written by unknown authors but has been edited/translated many times
4 "or us to exist & have cognitive thought on this planet, for me to believe that it was just random" where in science does it claim it is random?
No human can possibly know what God is or can even comprehend what would God want if anything. That would be like expecting bacteria to understand anything we know about. Science is the process of unbiased observation and then understanding the natural world which by definition is God's creation, and that includes evolution. Spirituality on the other hand is a person's PERSONAL relationship with God and is different with each individual.
Religion is a tool to keep people uninformed and unenlightened for the benefit of the few, and it has nothing to do with God.
How can anyone prove what we don't understand yet?
The whole "who can prove what" is silly since science is in its infancy and the idea of God may only be a human concept for all we know.
It should be suffice that we have some vague sense that there may be some omniscient being and that's it nothing more.
never trust ANYONE who says they know what God is or what God wants.
To prove my point, I goggled "Why everything has a cause is a bad argument for the existence of God" and clicked the first thing relevant to see the atheist argument again't it. From which I found this: "Today's argument: But All of This Had to Come From Somewhere! Otherwise known as the "First Cause" argument. "Things don't just come out of nowhere," the argument goes. "Everything that exists has a cause. Therefore, the entirety of physical existence itself had to have had a cause. Therefore, God exists."
Yeah. See, there are some big problems with that argument.
For starters: If everything has to have a cause...then what caused God?
And if God can somehow have always existed or come into being out of nothing...then why can't that be true of the universe?"
He says: "then why can't this be true of the universe Stating that a the universe caused itself, which is impossible a cause can't cause itself. This argument was also in a book I read.
So, for some reason atheists believe that I use god in the religious sense, when in fact, I'm am using it in the first cause since that the first cause must be something that has always existed. And thus, needs no cause. If you believe that the universe has always existed I can explain but I think that's kinda self explanatory since the Big Bang is widely accepted and proven. So, that which is the first cause is outside of time and moreover, as always existed. I choose to believe that the first cause is something omnipotent, while i admit it is possible that some dust outside of time that has always existed exploded and caused everything. But how did this 'dust' or whatever explode it needed a cause? The only thing that could cause something that is outside of time and has always existed is something/someone that can move/cause which I would argue dust does not.
Who uses these arguments? I'm not saying that God exists, i'm just saying that to say that atheists use logic and reason and Christians use faith is wrong. I know plenty of atheists who use the argument that the earth caused itself which is a flawed argument. This being said, I agree that a lot of Christians are ignorant as well; however, it wrong to say all atheists are logical and Christians are not.
To that end, there are plenty of logical explanations for an Omnipotent being.
Simply stated: 1. everything needs a cause (other than itself.) 2. Thus, the universemust be caused by something other than itself. 3. The causes cannot go on infinitely. 4. Therefore, there must be a first cause. This first cause must be able to create without being created or else it would need a cause as well, so there must be some type of being outside of time that created the world. It is impossible for the very first cause to not exist; thus it is necessary. The universe came into existence, it cannot be necessary since it was one point not existent. Thus, since the universe could have not existed, it is not necessary. Since the first cause is necessary this rules out the universe as a first cause.
Prove me wrong, cause something without a cause.
Furthermore
As of now, everything/everyone is contingent, expect for what is infinite. The only thing that is infinite is the first creator, and is necessary, rather than contingent. Everything that can be thought of is either real in reality or real in theory. Contingent things that exist in a thought have two options; they can either exist in reality, or not in reality. If something that is thought is necessary, however, its only option is to exist. An infinite being possess the qualities of perfection. If there were two infinite beings, however, one would have something that the other didn't, which is contradictory to the term perfection itself. Therefore, there must only be one necessary being.
Now, this does not neccasiarly mean there is a being that 100 percent exists for who is to say that the logic on the earth is true? For all we know, 2+2 could not equal four and we could all be using dream logic, thus, maybe things can be caused without a cause, for example, in a vacuum in which the big bang exploded randomly. I am not denying it is a possibility.
Moreover, regarding "given the history of religions" I think it's actually a strong argument for a first creator that throughout history all cultures have had the thought of a higher being. It is part of our human nature to think towards a higher being. While it may seem like there is a million religions because people have broken away from religions and made new ones, however, since 0 AD for about 1400 years, the three main religions, Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam are are loosely based on the same person Abraham. All three religions are basically a different interpretation or added text to what God allegedly said to Abraham.
Given the arguments I made and the fact that the three main religions are based upon the same principles, I don't think it is fair to just classify all Christians as ignorant. Nor would it be right for one to label all atheists as ignorant for his belief that the earth is the cause of itself.
P.S. I never said I believe in an omnipotent being, just simply stated that there is logical evidence towards both sides.
The ninth point is something to consider. It isn't a proof, but it's common sense. Why play dice with eternal punishment?
I don't know if we can really PROVE God's existence, but we can share our experiences and suggest his love to others. And if people choose to be rude and return the favor with unnecessary titles for Christians, we can smile back at them and know that their rudeness is a result of desperation.
I called myself agnostic, however I must be an athiest as I don't believe anything from anyone without something to back up there story...Everybody who knows me outside in the REAL world I live in would all agree I'm a sceptic about everything. So being a sceptic means by basic diffinition I'm an athiest.. and might I say F**king proud of it ..:)
I find it interesting that you never really answer what the question you claim your answering. And that is just from watching the first attempt in 'disproving' this mans beliefs or 'proof'. Especially the reference to the 5yr old child, im not sure how you missed it so badly? If what your hope with debating this issue is finding physical proof to the contrary or proving (badly by the way) that he is wrong, you prove nothing of the existance of God. Its more than just faith or as even you point out when you say a theist says explain how detailed the human body is and how your God did that cause it isnt in the Bible. I tell people all the time, if your looking for something hard enough you will find it. I dont believe however that you would ever believe in God simply because you either went through something as a child or were beaten about the head when you were younger. Oh and yes there is your making fun of you part. You make it easy when as smart as you seem you miss the fact that you exist only because the God you dont believe in allows you to exist.
Could someone sum up, (or better still, point me to non-video resources) to answer point 7. From the list I think point 7 is probably the strongest item.
Give me raw text over video any day.
where there's a will, there's a belief. no matter how rational this video -- and others like it by QualiaSoup, TheraminTrees, and Evid3nc3, for example -- the unfortunate majority of humanity chooses to believe in a higher, wholly anthropomorphic power that resembles them completely and utterly. the arrogance of their piety is beyond logical argument.
It isn't surprising nor upsetting that there are people like the Christian talk show host who are so ignorant of science, logic, and frankly their own Bible. What's upsetting is that these are the people who vote and are voted, and end up in charge of the country.
1. Give me some proof god does exist other than your book. No? That's because you know he's not real. 2. Majority of population... MUST mean he exists. Just like how a few hundred years ago a majority thought the earth was flat and the stars were glimpses of haven. 3. I don't even NEED to explain how dumb this one is. 4. OMG, THE BOOK SAYS I HAVE TO BELIEVE IN HIM OR SUFFER. What about other books from other religions. 5. You know I heard a term for this. The Big Bang Theory or something 6.Seriously, a book written hundreds of years ago. how the hell can you trust it wasn't some random guy writing a novel. 7. You should get that checked out. Doesn't sound healthy if you can hear voices, and feel s*it inside your body. 8. How the hell is that a proof of god, he doesn't seem to be an organized person. This world is a mess. 9. You lose a day of your life every week listening to the same old story over and over again. 10. Alright if everything has a creator what created god. Thanks for your time people, you should take my list and name it as 10 proofs god doesn't exist
gsjikwblao
wow. i have seen all of those words before just not in that particular order. where exactly in the bible does it say this?
The Bible speaks of an evolutionary movement from a base-level convicting conscience to one of greater motivation. It refers to this change in FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE as the second coming of Christ. There is, according to the Bible, a motivating force for consciousness which binds consciousness to a single point of perspective. It calls this motivating force "God". The Bible tells us that this force travels between all consciences of the human race and gives life to these "detection points". It tells us that this motivating force called "God" is withdrawing from all who don't want to be inconveinenced by the single point of perspective this force generates and is compressing into others who have been suffering this perspective while encountering others who are avoiding it. If this is revealed to be true in the near future, we can understand that "God" created evolution.
Look, Robert Allen.
You have told me that you feel sorry for my children with me as a father, that I have no education, I cant write English properly (its not my first language) etc etc.
This is an example of what you wrote:
"My anger comes from people like you who post their religious rot on sites like this and elsewhere and try to bring others down to their level of ignorance and stupidity.
If you had anything amounting to an education, you might not post such tripe, especially about the bible (and it's not a matter of IF it's a fairy tale, it IS a fairy tale) and "Jesus" which you know nothing about."
Read it for you're self.
Do you really think that people want to have a discussion on this level?
Do you seriously believe that this is a good way to communicate and that people take you seriously?
I have no intentions of reading all that crap of this type and haven`t read a single poster from you after I stopped answer you.
Do you expect me to start defending my self over my education etc?
For a hateful guy on the Internet whom I never met and don't know me at all?
You need to take a serious reality check on this communication, and ask yourself if it is healthy to keep up this "debating"
Concerning your question you should ask a_no_n. He is the one who say that ID is suppression of truth. Then he probably knows the truth. And in that case; en-light us all!
To say ID is false, he know that the universe wasn't designed. So, where did it came from in that case.
And, robertallen1, I didn't. ask for you're opinion, cause honestly, I really don't care.