1 1

Bob Dutko's Seventh and Eighth Proof for God's Existence Refuted.

Seven: Science Confirms the Bible.

Is the Bible compatible with science? Is science compatible with Biblical events? Nearly all professional scientists would take issue with the following Biblical tall tales.

What would a mathematician make of the data given in 1 Kings 7: 23? She'd calculate Pi as being equal to exactly three - no more and no less. Clearly the writers of 1 Kings failed Mathematics 101 (and God did a very poor job of proof-reading His own holy book).

Any astronomer worthy of the name would just have to barf at the notion that Planet Earth was created before the stars, or that stars could fall to Earth, or especially that the Sun and Moon actually stood still in the heavens.

And a physicist would have to throw up their hands in horror at the notion that any person could actually walk on water or that there could be a burning bush that wasn't consumed or that you can create something from nothing (i.e. - that multiplication of those loaves / fishes).

Chemists will dispute that water could be turned into wine or that the human body can be turned into a pillar of salt.

Any meteorologist worth their salt would tell you that it couldn't rain for 40 days and nights over the entirety of Planet Earth nor could just pure wind actually part the Red (or Reed) Sea.

A geologist would baulk at the idea that there actually was a global flood since there's no evidence of any such an event.

Here's one for the geographer. According to 1 Samuel 2: 8, the Earth is standing on pillars (not 'floating' in space), pillars created by God. I'm surprised that these pillars aren't standing in turn on the backs of turtles; and that from there on down it's literally turtles all the way down.

Any biochemist would dispute that a human male (Adam) could be created from just dust (and there is no such thing as the breath-of-life, something quite different in meaning as related in the Bible from what we'd call standard mouth-to-mouth resuscitation).

Any geneticist would take issue that a human female (Eve) could be created from a male rib. Eve's genetic inheritance, solely via Adam's rib, would have ensured she was a male. Jesus in turn would of have to have been a female getting 'his' sole genetics from his 'virgin' mother.

Zoologists would have a field day debating with True Believers the actual existence of a talking snake and a talking donkey as well as the existence of unicorns.

And what would a botanist make of talking trees and fig trees and bushes and brambles and vines (Judges 9: 8-15)!

Biologists are ROTFLTAO over any notion that a human (Jonah) could survive inside a 'whale' for three days or that spears / shafts turned into serpents / snakes. And what does the length of human hair really have to do with human strength?

Any medical doctor can tell you that you can technically perform a resurrection on someone technically dead for some rather short period after their technical death but the resurrection of Jesus falls way, way outside of those parameters, not to mention the lack of advanced medical technology that was available 2000 years ago.

Medical doctors will also take issue with the 'fact' that Biblical characters could live for over 900 years and that there was a virgin birth and that Sarah got in a family way at the age of 90 and that disease is caused by demonic or otherwise evil spirits.

Lastly, most historians / archaeologists would take issue with the historical / archaeological accuracy of nearly all of the major Biblical events related in the Old and New Testaments, like the Battle of Jericho or The Flood or the Exodus or the alleged events at Sodom and Gomorrah since no one can actually find Sodom and Gomorrah.

Eight: Non-Physical Human Characteristics.

How can one explain those immaterial aspects of the human being without resorting to God? Dutko notes things like our immaterial emotions: love, hate, jealousy, premeditation, pride and on and on it goes. Collectively we can call all of this just the "mind". Is the mind really immaterial? So where do all of the apparently immaterial parts of you - your mind - come from? It's back to the something (your material body, brain and biochemistry) from nothing (your immaterial mind, spirit, soul, essence, psyche, personality, whatever) or rather more correctly in this case nothing originating from something on the grounds that you were a something before you had any immaterial mind, essence, personality, etc.

So again the paradox of the material something generating and influencing the immaterial nothing (and vice versa) can only be resolved by invoking the supernaturalism’s Top Dog - God done it and does it and continues to do it. But is there really a paradox that requires a "God done it"? The easiest and probably most correct answer or solution is that the material (body, brain and biochemistry) holds sway over the material (essence, personality, psyche, etc.) and vice versa (as in the Placebo Effect, etc.). So all of those supposed / alleged immaterial bits and pieces of you are actually rooted in your own body chemistry, your brain chemistry and your overall biochemistry, up through and including your cells, tissues, organs, physiological systems, etc. but especially centered in that brain thingy of yours - contrary to often popular opinion, the heart has nothing to do with romantic love.

The evidence that the mind / body - brain interface is just a material interface on both sides of the equation (often noted as the mind-body problem or dualism) is that material things like drugs and disease and injury can and do have a profound effect on your essence or collectively your mind and vice versa (having already noted the Placebo Effect). Or perhaps thinking ‘immaterial’ erotic thoughts that can produce notable material physiological reactions.

Sorry Mr. Dutko, there's no requirement for God here.

To be continued...

johnprytz 7 Apr 20

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Even if science/history did prove parts of the bible true, that would still leave huge amounts that are false, which would only prove that it was not written by god or at the dictate of god.

Or was written by a very dumb god!

@johnprytz Its a close call but if I were a betting man I would put money on Gone With The Wind being the more accurate. LOL

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:334345
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.