God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist | Victor J. Stenger

God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist | Victor J. Stenger | Science 1 religion 0

books:

God: The Failed Hy...

	God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist Victor J. Stenger Prometheus Books, 2008 - 310 pages average customer review:based on 143 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

The final nail in God's coffin

Back in the 1970's George H. Smith authored his excellent, ground-breaking book "Atheism: The Case Against God" which is a spirited, philosophical defense of atheism. Smith's main premise in his book, which is still valid, is that the onus is upon a believer to prove God's existence.

Now, some 28 years later, Dr. Victor Stenger has written this brilliant debunking of the existence of God. Holding the deity, the Bible, un-Intelligent Design and other paranormal phenomenon (like psychics) to investigation. Dr. Stenger approaches each of the subjects he reviews in this book like any other hypothesis and decides to investigate them using a method that encompasses five evaluative conditions.

As I am sure you can guess, none of the allegations made for the existence of any of the subjects covered by him in his book (especially God) holds up to Dr. Stenger's review method. He also makes some good, non-scientific, rational and common-sense arguments against God's existence too that even I hadn't thought of that are sure to provoke many who read this book to think.

This is obviously the reason why many religions have conjured up trying to justify their deity's existence with pseudo science (i.e. un-Intelligent Design) in a last, desperate attempt to undermine scientific inquiry hoping to maintain their religious enterprises while keeping the wool over people's eyes about the truth of God's non-existence.

I suppose, in light of this book, that it would be appropriate to quote the Bible by stating that it is time for people to put away such childish things like belief in mythological characters, like God, that are alleged to be all-knowing and all powerful yet have never revealed themselves to mankind except via indirect methods, a man named Jesus who lived 2000+ years ago and is alleged (but never proven) to have been divine, the Bible (that was written by humans) and clergy (who are humans).

My atheism is a recognition of reality as it is and the fact that there are no deities or paranormal phenomenon of any kind to believe in since the manner in which they are investigated by Dr. Stenger, as outlined in his book, makes it clear that they do not exist. My eyes and mind are wide open to being shown the evidence of the existence of the paranormal. However, none of the evidence believers in these things show are convincing.

for more information click here

Science 1 religion 0

I found this book to be fascinating and very readable. The author shows, convincingly in my view, that religious explanations of the natural world and how it came to be are not just wrong, but unnecessary. I would recommend this book, especially to those who wouldn't be caught dead reading it!

God Fights Back

I have added more to my review and I am sorry it is long, but there is so much to think about on this topic. I have been reading all the feedback and that is interesting as well!
Original Review:
Well here are my thoughts on a widely discussed topic here about this book. Since the overwhelming comments were from the Ra-Ra section from the Atheists, I wanted a chance to put my two cents in supporting the existence of God. So here goes...

I wanted to start with the quick reference the author makes in the Preface of his book, to the US National Academy of Sciences comment (which he made sound like it was a world wide organization in his book). The author commented that only 7% of the Scientists of this organization are believers in God. Looking at the facts and remembering this is only one of the thousands of organizations like this, you would be surprised to learn that membership stands only at 2,100. This means (according to him) 147 highly qualified brilliant scientists believe in God. I don't think that is trivial, I think that is a lot of scientists within this particular group.

Page 12 "God viewed beyond matter, space and time and yet the foundation that meets our senses is described in terms of space and time (in which Science can measure)" I argue here that there is so much beyond our human comprehension that Science just can't grasp it (for example, Einstein's theory made it sound possible to bend time. Because of the mass quantity of speed you would need (traveling the speed of light, like hyperspace and being able to race towards the end of the universe, which in theory would put you back in time). This is an example of what is outside of "measurable" and beyond.

Page 12 & 13 Looking for the all encompassing blueprint, the author seems to dismiss the idea that God could be into everything. But he himself spoke of the order of things, using math and the Fibonacci Phenomenon PHI, I would argue that this strengthen the scientific proof of this vast blueprint at work. I love when the author puts everything in terminology like AHA! That is why there is no God, but I would say how can Science prove that the "UpQuark, DownQuark and electron" is not God himself or part of the blueprint he created (think of the movie The Matrix, which unravels everything we might know of what we think is real - Love that movie). And really UpQuarks, Electrons, does that satisfy this creation standing before us called humankind? I don't know, it sure seems bigger to me than a bunch of matter that blew together from the cosmos.

Page 16 Science theories have been proven and disproved for centuries. Some say that there are things Science will never be able to prove (for instance infinity versus finite ...ex, galaxy versus how small you can cut a cell in half). Proving something can come from nothing I think is a relevant statement. When the author refers to "God of the Gaps" I think Science is passing the buck here. Those "Gaps" shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

Page 18 The Author's final statement in the preface makes me wary. What about the historical evidence? The book (at least for now) leaves out the historical references to God. People wrote about the Roman Empire, WWII and people debate what is written, but there is no argument that these things didn't happen or exist (unless you're a madman from Iraq). Japanese history books would look a lot different to America's version of WWII. The scriptures have been written and analyzed/debated but there is no doubt that there was this man Jesus on this planet (or other proclaimed deities, saints,etc). When miracles are seen by eyewitness accounts and reaffirmed by other eye witnesses, this becomes written history. You could argue thousands were crazy for what they have written, but Science would have put it in a chart, analyzed the different statements, tried to attain what was accurate or false and come up with a group, sub group, placebo group, etc. The point is thousands don't just make stuff up; otherwise much of history would be make believe.

How can you find something you can't see or measure it? Here is my answer to this dilemma:
Only 70 years ago we were using Whale oil to heat our homes, Whale Oil! Who would have thought of that idea, Hey, lets look at a whale and heat our homes with that gorgeous creature. Point is this is the early stages of mankind's existence; there is a ton of stuff we have yet to discover. God could be waving in your face right now for all we know and you wouldn't even know it. Sure Science boasts its progress, but science is still in its early infant stages. They haven't been able to cure aids, cancer, aging, I think they still don't know what Pluto is or was, etc.

Chapter 1:
Page 28: Author refers to US National Academy of Sciences again, saying "Science is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question which Science is neutral." This goes back to some of the things I was saying.

Page 32: The Philosopher Section: I will pick one out of the many examples he uses, "The perfect creator"...The play on words, indeed the placing of words on a level of "Black or White" "All or Nothing" terminology saying God does not exist. If we assume that the blueprint for the Universe is a perfect working model - we shouldn't think words can simplify its design, like Wow our star will blow up in a billion years from now and wipe out everyone on the earth, its God's fault (or God being bad) OR could it be this is nature's order that was perfectly constructed? You build the perfect human being and then like the "Sowing the Seed" parable, if you don't tend to that seed it will be destroyed. Is that God's fault? I don't think God's perfect design meant having condo's cluttering his beautiful mountains. Some of these words are too literal, that goes for the whole debate on God versus Evil. Life and death cycle, everything will die in time, is that Evil? Or the natural order of things.

I do want to add where philosophy and Science collide to help the unbeliever's stance (which can perplex my mind too, although I can reason thru it, which Science would mock as contrived assumptions, but I would suggest that much of Science starts somewhere with a contrived notion and then goes about proving it and measuring it). #1 Why did God make the Dinosaurs first? (or was man here when the dinosaurs were, as Moses wrote about in Genesis and then the great flood (Noah) was the eventual extinction of the dinosaurs. They say underwater/above ground Volcanoes ultimately did in the dinosaurs, which would have ultimately created monster floods. I don't know. #2. Monkeys cause a problem for me, why would God create another creature with such close attributes to us, why create them at all if we were the ultimate design, I don't know. Was God practicing his golf swing that day?

Page 37: Author says "Scientific model no matter how well established, are still Human contrivances and subject to change by future development" Hey didn't I just say that!

Page 39: Valid point the author makes when he speaks of "objective reality" or "Gods are human inventions based on human concepts" I understand his argument (but this goes for Science too -see above statement). Here is where do we accept God spoke through these individuals or were they smoking something?

Page 42: In God's model, if I am arguing for God, I should state that I accept #1, 2, 5, 7 & 8. I would omit #3, 4 & 6.

Chapter 2:
Page 52: Now we get to the heart of the matter and unbelievers must relish in this evolution premise. Interesting that when God gave instructions to the men/women that spoke his word, he wasn't giving it to them in scientific terms (although the building of the ark mentions some Scientific dimensions). You come to think of it, if God came to me I sure would know its God and then be in complete awe, the last thing I would be thinking is hey where is the Science in all that. I would probably be like, and is there anything else you need me to do oh Lord. Kind of the way I address my current boss (ha-ha). Alright back to being serious, the author loves to by-pass rather quickly the biggest sticking points. Here is his own statement "Evolution removes the need to introduce God at any step in the process of the development of life (and here it comes) It does not explain the origin of life, so this gap still remains. Think of Planet of the Apes here, remember the time line the apes try to prove and then they find the talking doll, oops, back to the drawing board. And I disagree with the statement "We have no way to conclude that life itself could not have had a purely material origin." Wow dismisses the complexities of life in one fall swoop.

Page 56: The Eye - maybe I don't get it, what does the evolution of the eye - being that it is "purely material and mindless processes" - explain the functioning as the totally whole human being? The eye, mouth, nose, etc make up the whole human, which is the only creature with a brain to create language, voice, speech, etc. Sure a dolphin can chirp, but come on! I don't dismiss the insignificant eye, Science is dismissing the "Eye of the Beholder", which makes it perfect in design.

Page 62: It's interesting that the author takes the Fibonacci sequence and uses it to benefit his argument. Indeed I believe it strengthens the Pro-God argument. The preciseness of this design of flowers, humans, etc. That the physics/math to put it all together is not simple but extremely complex. The astronomical odds of all this coming together are staggering. Chance is baloney. You can't get all this, a livable, breathable planet without some serious complexities to come together perfectly for it to happen. All the other planets were misses? Or is Earth the perfect design? Heavy thinking is required here.

Page 71: His final statement of worldwide cruelty. Remember that God has judged us the fittest, most desired creature to run his design for the long haul (the lesser dumb animal references in the bible, say that we would rule over this design). Will we destroy it? The answer is already known. But it still seems like a terrific gift from the creator, even though it is not meant to last, nor is anything in time. And eventually along comes another creation, which may even be building itself as we speak light years away from Earth...oohh heavy thinking again.

OK OK so now its time to drop the gloves. I have heard enough God bashing. I challenge Science and the author, since its sooo simple making structures into complex designs, how about reproducing what God does. If Science can create life from a void, then you win!
If it's so easy to draw dots on a page and say, see I can create a sunflower, look you have been given the material, try to create that on your own and all you get is Artificial Life, a robot. Really, make a quark from scratch or a cell or DNA from scratch and tell me that it is easy. If Science could do that they could create life, but they can't.

One last thing. I can't say enough about the astronomical odds! The author needs to consult with a mathematician or numerologist, to enlighten him to the number game he is talking up. The odds of it all coming together, simple or not is inconceivable. Try and solve that Gap!

And there it is, Merry Christmas and God Bless!

New Addition to my review:
Carl Sagan once said "Human life is precious, very precious."
An amazing confluence of factors combined to create us accidentally...or was it by accident? The crux of it all!! The old adage, "What is the meaning of life?" or is there any meaning to it?

So based on your feedback and comments, I make the following rebuttal:

I would say you are dismissing the eyewitness accounts (which can't be said for Greek Mythology). Your statements assumes that God hasn't made his case known for thousands of years. That this is based all on expectation or conjured dreams, I would have to go back to the historical argument. And not just history plain for all of us to see, but the other lesser known written tomes that have been written up to modern times about miracles that are eyewitness accounts. Remember to become a saint you have to have performed some documented proven miracle to become canonized.
Haven't we been fine tuning to what God is? Since the Egyptians, Mayans, Greeks all believed on a higher being but misplaced their lack of knowledge by saying the Sun is God or what not. Then the Jewish people took it a step forward saying, God is telling you there is only one God and we have the proof of his almighty existence by the words of those who know him. Catholics then take it even further saying "Hey, we got em right here on Earth and now we have words straight from God's mouth". Now Scientist comes along and we start fine tuning it even more. I think we will find that the course of history will lead to the eventual finding of God ( The bible says so). Humans hunger for the truth and truth be told, it is just a matter of time before we can see the un-seeable. This leads into my next topic:

Energy fields: Scientists have only touched the surface on discoveries surrounding the different energy fields that surround us. Do we dismiss the Biofield as malarkey, not testable? Anti-matter is still a concept that has yet to be proven or tested, yet Scientist are pretty sure it exists (they are pretty sure about Black Holes now too). So who says we don't have a soul? Maybe Science hasn't found it yet.

Gravity
Ionic energy
Anti-matter
Light
Electromagnetic
Biofield is claimed to be "a mass less field that: (a) is not necessarily electromagnetic, (b) surrounds and permeates living bodies, (c) affects the body, and (d) possibly is related to qi" Although scientists and physicians remain skeptical as to its existence, alternative practitioners claim that humans have a field external from their bodies that strongly affects actions and feelings. They believe biofields can be degraded by EMF frequencies and electronic screens such as radio waves, television and computer screens, and can lead to disease, overstress, and fatigue.
Putative energy fields (also called biofields) have defied measurement to date by reproducible methods. Therapies involving putative energy fields are based on the concept that human beings are infused with a subtle form of energy. This vital energy or life force is known under different names in different cultures, such as qiIn traditional Chinese medicine, the vital energy or life force proposed to regulate a person's spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical health and to be influenced by the opposing forces of yin and yang. In traditional Chinese medicine a whole medical system that originated in China. It is based on the concept that disease results from disruption in the flow of qi and imbalance in the forces of yin and yang. Practices such as herbs, meditation, massage, and acupuncture seek to aid healing by restoring the yin-yang balance and the flow of qi. (TCM), ki in the Japanese Kampo system, doshas in Ayurvedic medicine A whole medical system that originated in India. It aims to integrate the body, mind, and spirit to prevent and treat disease. Vital energy is believed to flow throughout the material human body, but it has not been unequivocally measured by means of conventional instrumentation. Nonetheless, therapists claim that they can work with this subtle energy, see it with their own eyes, and use it to effect changes in the physical body and influence health. (Sorry for some plagiarism)

There is considerable speculation both in science and science fiction as to why the observable universe is apparently almost entirely matter, whether other places are almost entirely antimatter instead, and what might be possible if antimatter could be harnessed, but at this time the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics. Exactly, UNSOLVED PROBLEMS of the universe. God happens to be one of those biggies!

I guess my point here is all these things are un-seeable with the naked eye, does that mean they do not exist? The only thing that exposes these energy fields as being real are devices Scientists made (remember still in its infant stages of discovery). If you do not have the device to measure fields that mankind may have discovered (and has tried to document, test, make medicine for, etc) more than 2,000 years ago, I think is important. That only the most pious priests, shamans, rabbi's, etc, worldwide would say this energy exists, they can feel it... well can we dismiss the multitudes as having grand delusions? I don't know.
________________________________________________________________________
Chapter 3: What I have currently wrote.

Page 84, 91 the author loves to zip over inconclusive evidence (like its never going to be proven) and say "See this stuff is Baloney, Science has won again." I keep thinking "See you haven't discovered it yet, your scientific tools are not advanced enough. Enough people are saying there is something to this, don't run away just yet.

Page 93 150 years is a drop in the bucket of time!

Page 102 Science sometimes doesn't go to the end of the experiment and work itself backwards. This is the problem with what they are looking for here. So many claims of miraculous recoveries from scientifically proven diseases that would 100% result in death, how do we explain this anomaly. How do scientist explain it, they can't. So instead they invent ways to test the untestable. Starting at the beginning instead of looking at the end results. The end justifies the means. God is waving at them again.

Page 104 The author is challenging God here...Why wouldn't God give his creation the game plan? Once again, I would go back to man not being able to understand it. Kind of like Revelations or The Miracle at Lourdes (see Wikipedia's definition - I thought it was interesting).

Chapter 4:
Page 114 -see first paragraph. Done.
The author's assumption will now be we know plenty. When in reality they know very little. We might be impressed that Science lets us glimpse further and further into the universe, roam around on Mars, but the more they find the more questions I have. Like I said they still don't know what a Black Hole is, or Anti-matter or how about just curing cancer?

Page 115 Why is the author not saying that ALL of this is not Miraculous? I would. Once again simplifying the case against God and challenging God to create a miracle - when he has done just that. It cracks me up to be so crass to say that the laws abide thirteen billion years into the Universe, etc, etc. It's like looking into the ocean and you're going to tell me Science is going to see that one pebble move in the whole ocean? Well when that pebble does move, it sets off a whole chain reaction (Manchurian Butterfly theory). So in a way, lets face it, you can't even wrap your brain around it. The author still can't conclusively say what created the Universe and what is on the other side or what will be there when it is done. Our puny minds can't come close to thinking we can define it. It is egotistical, I believe the author is the one using presumptions based on his theories. The Universe is "Zero" "Inflationary Big Bang", I love this, you still haven't told me how it all started. You can not start something without nothing. Energy has not created matter, you need something there. You want to tell me a void sits stagnant in the universe with all this energy and -poof- there was matter!?! Now that my friend would truly be miraculous, not Science!
Hey Author, notice the equation E=MC it doesn't work without the Mass component!
"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!!"

Page 123: This is REAL important; the author is arguing against other scientists theories!

"Whew" that is it! Hey Thanks for reading!

for more information click here

Can science disprove God's existence?

"GOD the failed hypothesis ... How science shows that God does not exist" by Victor J. Stenger

Professor Stenger treats the existence of God as a scientifically testable hypothesis.

The God in question has certain attributes common to the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The novelty of Stenger's approach lies in his attempt to use science to resolve this issue, which transcends the boundaries usually set by science. He argues "that God should be detectable by scientific means", and he gives "examples of phenomena that, if observed, cannot be of material origin beyond a reasonable doubt". "Observations of these phenomena would defy all reasonable, natural, material descriptions" (quoting from the preface).

Studies of such alleged phenomena as the efficacy of prayer, communication with dead souls, and the predictions of religious prophecies and revelations, have failed to produce statistically significant results.

Turning to science itself, Stenger searches for "miracles", defined as nonrepeatable exceptions to the laws of nature. A likely candidate is the Big Bang, but he explains that there was no "singularity" at that time. The law of conservation of energy was not violated, because the total energy of the universe (matter minus gravitation) has always been zero. The anthropic argument, that the universe was fine-tuned to make human life possible, is belied by the fact that the chemical elements needed for life are easily formed in nuclear reactions.

Stenger concludes that the existence of God is contradicted by empirical data. Furthermore, and this is essential to his argument, if the data had shown otherwise, atheists would have had to admit the possibility that God exists. I very much doubt that, because an overwhelming case can be made, using other arguments, that no such God exists. This ungodly reviewer, for one, would have looked to science to explain the paradoxocal data.

for more information click here