Cheap God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Book) (Victor J. Stenger) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

How do you prove the unprovable?
Stenger has bitten off a large argument here, and done a fairly admirable job at tackling certain aspects of it, but his larger premise is faulty based on his belief that humans, at present, have the ability to disprove the existence of a supreme being. While I agree with some of his goals, he takes it one step too far. Rational scientific evidence suggests that a god does not exist, and never has. This, however, is far from conclusive. Strong atheism requires almost as much faith as fundamentalism. <
> <
>Perhaps the day will come when human knowledge will be such that we can provide a scientific proof against the existence of a god, but that day has not yet arrived. Stenger can disprove the "proofs" of the faithful quite convincingly, but that is all. The larger question remains unanswered, and will for some time; perhaps for all time. <
> <
>Conversely, Stenger IS convincing in his assertions against religious visitations, miracles, and the answering of prayers. These are mythical stories perpetuated by those who want to believe. In all cases of so-called miracles there is a logical scientific alternate explanation. Remember Occam's Razor: the simplest solution should be the right one. Are we to believe a scientific explanation, or call it divine? Science is simpler and makes much more sense. Same goes for prayers allegedly being answered. <
> <
>As for the historical evidence of the resurrection, I'm afraid the tales in ancient books of mythology do little to sway me. Many have faith that it, along with other biblical claims, did indeed happen. Faith does not equal proof. <
> <
>Perhaps a god does exist, and perhaps he/she/it did create the universe. The limits of human knowledge at present are such that this can neither be proven nor disproved. However, the burden of proof is on the faithful. If I claim that the Loch Ness Monster exists, I need to provide some proof. It is not the job of unbelievers to disprove my assertion. While I find Stenger's arguments interesting, we as a species do not yet have the ability to irrefutably claim that god does not, or never has existed. Just as the faithful cannot prove that a god does exist. Perhaps we should stop trying and just agree to disagree. <
> <
>Whether a god exists or not, there is substantial evidence that such a god does not intervene in worldly affairs. The stories of divine intervention on Earth have a more rational, scientific explanation. For example, Dr. Michael Persinger offers a reasonable explanation for why people can feel as though they have communed with a divine spirit. Did the Virgin Mary really appear in a grilled cheese sandwich, or is there a more rational explanation? Did Moses really see a god in a burning bush, or did he perhaps make it up? He may even have been schizophrenic. Again, Occam's Razor. <
> <
>My basic point is that we can't prove that a supreme being does not exist. The evidence against it leads me to believe that a god does not exist, but this is far from conclusive. However, there is ample convincing evidence against such a god being involved in the daily happenings of its creation. <
> <
>Let's say, for sake of argument, that there was a god that created the universe. What has he been up to since then? Scientific evidence indicates that he/she/it has left the universe to its own devices. Is he collecting unemployment insurance? Did he tire himself out and decide to sleep away the eons? Is he like an innocent bystander who just doesn't want to get involved? Did he figure he was finished his work and willed himself out of existence? Did he die? We can't know. <
> <
>IF a god created the universe, then I guess he deserves our thanks. So, just in case, "Thanks, dude." That is all you will get from me. Daily or weekly groveling and prayer accomplishes nothing tangible, from my perspective. For the faithful, it can act as a shield against the some of the universe's harsh realities. It can also compel less thoughtful individuals to live more ethically. <
> <
>As for me, I believe and accept that this is the only life I have, so I should live it fully. I can live a moral life without divine guidance. Unlike militant atheists, I can also respect the beliefs of those who disagree with me. If faith provides you with comfort and/or guidance, who am I to try and convince you otherwise? Unless you are a Scientologist, in which case I might want to call you a wack-job. <
> <
>I am uncertain that strong atheism does anything to further the cause of rational scientific thought. It merely polarizes viewpoints, resulting in, as an example, a mixture of five-star and one-star reviews. <
> <
>Many strong atheists see the faithful as deluded and irrational, while fundamentalists see atheists in a similar light. One interesting difference between the two groups is who holds the political power in the United States. The first President Bush once made a claim that atheists should not be considered citizens and not have the right to vote; how very enlightened from a man who once had control of a nuclear arsenal. <
> <
>The atheist/agnostic movement has much to overcome to be accepted by society at large. I am not convinced that this book will help the cause. <
>

---

Pseudoscience and bad history
Firstly, I would just like to point out that Professor Stenger has no historical credentials whatsoever. He is a physicist and an astronomer, not a historian! It is quite apparent that the little historical research he did, if any, is extremely skewed and faulty. <
> <
>Secondly, I would like to mention how science cannot disprove any event in history, such as the resurrection of Christ. It is pseudoscientific to the extreme if any scientist attempts to do so! What happened in history happened, regardless of where science takes us. <
> <
>I will now reveal the most important historical fallacies Stenger made in this book. The first historical error in this book is the claim that no extra-biblical records corroborating the darkness and earthquake during the crucifixion of Jesus exist. That is simply incorrect! There were two ancient Greek historians, who were extremely critical to the early church, who acknowledge this event in their writings. Thallus writes that this darkness was the result of an eclipse, even though he tries to explain the reason he is indeed aware of this event in history. Another Greek historian, Phlegon, also describes the darkness and the earthquake as well. He includes in his writing that the earthquake destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and killed thousands of cattle. He also includes the fact that the entire Mediterranean area was affected by the darkness. <
> <
>Another major fallacy in Professor Stenger's book is his reliance on the King James Version of the Bible. I would just like to point to the fact that the KJV Bible has been shown to contain several fatal misinterpretations of the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. This is due to the fact that when the KJV was written, the writers had a scarce amount of the original manuscripts. Today, we have a vast amount of the original manuscripts, thanks to archaeology. The KJV Bible should no longer be used as a source of information! <
> <
>Dr. Stenger's third error, more of a speculation, in his book is the claim that some of the prophecies from the Old Testament were not fulfilled in the life of Jesus. Now, the ancient Jews thought that the fulfillment of prophecies in the time of the messiah would depend upon Israel's moral state. When Jesus of Nazareth came, he fulfilled about half of the prophecies from the Hebrew Bible. The rest of the New Testament shows that the second half of the prophecies will be fulfilled at the end of time, when Christ comes again. It is a matter of time which describes how the prophecies were, and will be, fulfilled, not Israel's moral state or a "failure" of certain prophecies!

---

List of Scientific proof of NO God usefull
I find the lists of Scientific proof that there is NO God are very usefull when countering the pig-ignorant primitive superstition of christians.