God: The Failed HypothesisHow Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

Victor Stenger BS EE, Newark College MS Physics, UCLA PhD Physics, UCLA Prof of Physics and

Astronomy, U of Hawaii Adjunct Prof of

Philosophy, U of Colorado Fellow, CSICOP Research Fellow, CFI

Visiting Prof/Researcher U of Heidelberg, Ger Oxford, England National Nuclear Physics

Lab, Frascati, Italy U of Florence, Italy

Research Career Elementary Particle

Physics High-Energy gamma-ray

and neutrino astronomy Neutrino Mass

40+ Years in Elementary Particle Physcis and Astrophysics

Thesis

The existence of God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us

Models will be assumed in which God has specific attributes that can be tested empirically

If we have no evidence or other reason for believing in God, then we can be pretty sure that God does not exist

The supernatural hypothesis of God is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable by the established methods of science.

Scientific Evidence

Study Protocols include evaluation of error sources Hypothesis clearly established before data taking Control for bias (blinding) Hypothesis must be falsifiable Results must be independently replicated

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Asymmetry: While failure to pass a required test is sufficient to falsify a model, the passing of the test is not

sufficient to verify the model

Models

The elements of scientific models need not correspond precisely to the elements of "true reality"

The elements of scientific models are not limited to those supported by direct observation

Scientific models are human inventions and represent the best we can do in describing objective reality

When a model successfully describes a wide range of observations, we can be confident that the elements of those models have something to do with whatever reality is out there, but less confident that they constitute reality itself

The validity of the scientific method is justified by its immense success

Models

The answer: We do not need to know Whether any of the objects of scientific models are real or not

does not change the fact that those models have immense utility

By dealing in terms of models of God that are based on human conceptions, we avoid the objection that the "true" God may lie beyond our limited cognitive capabilities

When it is demonstrated that a particular God is rejected by the data, it is not proof that all conceivable gods do not exist; it simply shows beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with the specific, hypothesized attributes does not exist

How can we mere mortals know about the true nature of a god who lies

beyond our sensibilities?

"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful."

George E. P. Box, FRS (1919-2013)

The God Model

1. God is the creator and preserver of the universe2. God is the architect of the structure of the universe

and the author of the laws of nature3. God steps in whenever he wishes to change the

course of events, which may include violating his own laws as, for example, in response to human entreaties

4. God is the creator and preserver of life and humanity, where human beings are special in relation to other life-forms

Judeo-Christian-Islamic God

The God Model

5. God has endowed humans with immaterial, eternal souls that exist independent of their bodies and carry the essence of a person's character and selfhood

6. God is the source of morality and other human values such as freedom, justice, and democracy

7. God has revealed truths in scriptures and by communicating directly to select individuals throughout history

8. God does not deliberately hide from any human being who is open to finding evidence for his presence

Judeo-Christian-Islamic God

Testing the God Hypothesis

The Illusion of Design

Searching for a World Beyond Matter

Cosmic Evidence

The Uncongenial Universe

The Failures of Revelation

Do Our Values Come From God?

The Argument from Evil

Possible and Impossible Gods

Searching for a WorldBeyond Matter

Mind and Soul (duality) Brain Science Today ESP Miracles Does Prayer Work? Immortality

Intercessory Prayer: It Works!! Bruce L. Flamm, "Faith Healing Confronts Modern

Medicine," Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 8, no. 1 (2004): 9-14

Randolph C. Byrd, "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population," Southern Medical journal 81, no. 7 (1988): 826-29

W. S. Harris et al., "A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit," Archives of Internal Medicine 159 (1999): 2273-78

Intercessory Prayer: No Observable Effect

K. Y. Cha, D. P. Wirth, and R. A. Lobo, "Does Prayer Influence the Success of In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial," Journal of Reproductive Medicine 46, no. 9 (September 2001): 781-87

Leonard Leibovici, "Effects of Remote, Retroactive Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients with Bloodstream Infections: A Controlled Trial," British Medical Journal 323 (2001): 1450-51

Brian Olshansky and Larry Dossey, "Retroactive Prayer: A Preposterous Hypothesis?" British Medical Journal 327 (2003): 1460-63

M. W. Krucoff et al., "Music, Imagery, Touch, and Prayer as Adjuncts to Interventional Cardiac Care: The Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II Randomized Study," Lancet 366 (July 16, 2005): 211-17

H. Benson et al., "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer," American Heart Journal 151, no. 4 (2006): 934-42

Do Our Values Come From God?

The Pipline to God Common Standards Noble Ideals The Good Society Holy Horrors Natural Morality

Noble Ideals

Not everyone agrees on every moral issue Christians may look to the Bible, but how they interpret

what they read must depend on ideals that they have already developed from some other source

The fact is that these principles were developed in earlier cultures and history, indicating that they were adopted by - rather than learned from - religion

However common may be the view that religion is the source of moral behavior, what

do the data say?

While it is fine that religions preach moral precepts, they have no basis to claim that

these precepts were authored by their particular deity or, indeed, any deity at all

The Sermon on the Mount "Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn

to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39); "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:43-44)

I treat those who are good with goodness. And I also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. I am honest with those who are honest. And I am also honest with those who are dishonest. Thus honesty is attained (Taoism. Tao Te Ching 49)

Conquer anger by love. Conquer evil by good. Conquer the stingy by giving. Conquer the liar by truth (Buddhism. Dhammapada 223)

A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them-for who is without fault? (Hinduism. Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda 115)

"Love your enemies."

The Golden Rule Jesus: "So, whatever you wish that men would do to you, do

so to them; for this is the law of the prophets" (Matt. 7:12) The Hindu Mahabharata: "This is the sum of all true

righteousness: deal with others as thou wouldst thyself be dealt by." (c. 150 BCE)

Isocrates: "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (c. 375 BCE)

Confucius: "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others." (The Doctrine of the Mean 13, c. 500 BCE)

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."

No original moral concept of any significance can be found in the New

Testament

Possible and Impossible Gods Disagreeing with the Data What If? What Gods Remain? The Hiddenness Problem

Gods Who DisagreeWith The Data

1. A God who is responsible for the complex structure of the world, especially living things, fails to agree with empirical fact that this structure can be understood to arise from simple natural processes and shows none of the expected signs of design. Indeed, the universe looks as it should look in the absence of design.

2. A God who has given humans immortal souls fails to agree with the empirical facts that human memories and personalities are determined by physical processes, that no nonphysical or extraphysical powers of the mind can be found, and that no evidence exists for an afterlife.

3. A God whose interactions with humans, including miraculous interventions, have been reported in scriptures is contradicted by the lack of independent evidence that these miraculous events took place and the fact that physical evidence now convincingly demonstrates that some of the most important biblical narratives, such as the Exodus, never took place.

Gods Who DisagreeWith The Data

4. A God who miraculously and supernaturally created the universe fails to agree with the empirical fact that no violations of physical law were required to produce the universe, its laws, or its existence rather than nonexistence. It also fails to agree with established theories, based on empirical facts, which indicate that the universe began with maximum entropy and so bears no imprint of a creator.

5. A God who fine-tuned the laws and constants of physics for life, in particular human life, fails to agree with the fact that the universe is not congenial to human life, being tremendously wasteful of time, space, and matter from the human perspective. It also fails to agree with the fact that the universe is mostly composed of particles in random motion, with complex structures such as galaxies forming less than 4 percent of the mass and less than one particle out of a billion.

6. A God who communicates directly with humans by means of revelation fails to agree with the fact that no claimed revelation has ever been confirmed empirically, while many have been falsified. No claimed revelation contains information that could not have been already in the head of the person making the claim.

Gods Who DisagreeWith The Data

7. A God who is the source of morality and human values does not exist since the evidence shows that humans define morals and values for themselves. This is not "relative morality." Believers and nonbelievers alike agree on a common set of morals and values. Even the most devout decide for themselves what is good and what is bad. Nonbelievers behave no less morally than believers.

8. The existence of evil, in particular, gratuitous suffering, is logically inconsistent with an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God (standard problem of evil).

Living in the Godless Universe Is Religion Useful? The Negative Impact of Religion on Society Meaning Comfort and Inspiration

"A man who says, 'If God is dead, nothing matters', is a spoilt child who has never looked at his fellow man with compassion."

Ethics Without God (1990)Kai Neilsen (born 1926)

Summary Well Written Methodical and Scientifically Rigorous Approach Good Research Excellent References

Stenger Bibliography Not By Design: The Origin of the Universe (1988) Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World beyond the

Senses (1990) The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics

and Cosmology (1995) Timeless Reality: Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple

Universes (2000) Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for

Purpose in the Universe (2003) The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics

Come From? (2006) http:// www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/

Physics Cosmology Philosophy Religion Pseudoscience