#13,526 in Books
Reddit mentions of God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
Sentiment score: 3
Reddit mentions: 20
We found 20 Reddit mentions of God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
- Prometheus Books
Features:
Specs:
Height | 8.63 Inches |
Length | 6.03 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Release date | April 2008 |
Weight | 1.08908357428 Pounds |
Width | 0.73 Inches |
That's a common misconception. The traditional concept of gods is not compatible with modern scientific knowledge. For a summary of why this is the case, see e.g. God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
Beyond that, science provides explanations for human belief in gods that shows why so many people have such beliefs, and it's not because gods exist.
We are at a point in human history where it's possible to say, with as much certainty as we have about any knowledge, that gods do not exist, outside of the imaginations of humans.
I highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/
The author makes the case that god IS a testable hypothesis, and when consistent scrutiny is applied, the hypothesis can be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.
You might also like to check out some of the links on r/atheistgems (start with the FAQ there).
Maybe check out NukeThePope's book list -
of the ones he has there, I guess I'd suggest (after the ones I mentioned before in my other comment) starting with these:
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Delusion-Why-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520
http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911 (or, there's this essay)
as addressing particular criteria you mentioned in your post
--
Here's something for you to ponder: what are good criteria for evaluating the claims of other religions (say, starting with Islam, but including any religious claims, including those of say Scientology)?
What happens if you apply those criteria to the claims of Christianity?
>And no one has the evidence to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
They do, and have already done so.
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
https://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God:_The_Failed_Hypothesis
dude it's over.... read some Karl Marx
here's another video from Dr Richard Carrier breaking it down scientifically and with actual facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79Lmmy2jfeo
here's an excellent book:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520
it's a dry read, but it fucking crushes the Jesus myth and other super natural nonsense.
read the portable atheist by Christopher Hitchens, there are countless atheist philosophers that utterly fucking destroy the validity of jesus. It's over dude, give it up! there was no Jesus.
I don't know why people keep thinking he was just some ordinary dude hippy guy walking around preaching shit. He never fucking existed.
facts, science and the philosophers are on my side, not yours and they never will be.
God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger. It's quite good without being too abrasive in my opinion.
Hello, and welcome to the club!
The four people considered the "founding fathers" of "New Atheism" are also known as "The 4 Horsemen," and they are:
----
Here are more people who have gotten respect in the world of atheism, in no particular order:
----
You'll find a few more atheist authors on my book page and even more in the book and video recommendations in the /r/atheism FAQ.
No, some conceptions of god are falsifiable. There's nothing magical about the word god that makes it somehow unfalsifiable. It really depends on what one means by 'god'. How many essential attributes/past actions does this purported entity have? If they are disproven, perhaps that conception of god has been disproven. There are people who would not - indeed perhaps cannot - believe in a god who did not create the universe in 6 days. If one considers this disproven, then that god is in fact disproven.
One can create a conception of a god that contains no falsifiable claims, or perhaps one can simply disbelieve that particular claims have indeed been disproven. In the first case the proposed deity would look not much like the christian conception, and in the second one definitely must ignore much of modern science.
The recently deceased Victor Stenger wrote a number of wonderful books on the subject that I highly recommend. The short version is that atheists should not agree that god is unfalsifiable because virtually all conceptions of god are not only falsifiable, but nearly entirely falsified. We should be challenging this assertion wherever it is stated, not reenforcing it.
If you haven't read it I strongly recommend Stenger's God The Failed Hypothesis. He tackles the question of if God can be tested for. He comes up with a number of viable tests all of which God fails. As Goldang says we can't disprove all possible gods. But what we can disprove is an interventionist God. And since that is fundamentally what groups like TSCC argue for, it amounts to the same thing.
All the other comments here clarify how your friend is misunderstanding how science and the scientific method actually work, so I won't repeat that.
I just wanted to add an additional perspective, that a lot depends on just what questions are being asked. If someone is asking about the existence of God, then this is something that is not directly addressable with the tools of science in the traditional sense (although Victor Stenger does a pretty good job of addressing this in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis).
But many religions, especially Mormonism, go way beyond these difficult questions, and make their claims about matters that are well within the ability of Science to address: was there an Israelite migration to the Americas around 600 BC, was there a culture present in the Americas that developed from that migration, is the Book of Abraham a translation of specific Egyptian papyri? The actual evidence is compellingly stacked against these claims having any truth to them whatsoever.
If somebody wants to believe in some kind of God, in the absence of compelling, direct evidence against God's existence, I'll cut them some slack, and leave them be. But if they choose to exercise faith and belief on empirically testable claims, and claim certain things to be literally true, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then I will challenge them whenever I have the opportunity.
Two books you should probably read are:
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist by Victor J. Stenger
and
Faith Vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible by Jerry Coyne
This is a fascinating read:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265843053&sr=8-2
God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
Don't get The God Delusion. I seriously don't understand why people always recommend Dawkins to thiests. I think non-theists get much more out of his books.
Read this or this. I have The God Delusion and was not satisfied with it:
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302021802&sr=1-1
(Mind you this 2nd book's title is a bit hyperbolic, its rather the argument for the abrahamic religions (Xtianity/Judaism/Islam) but he goes into detail on the extent of the evidence for those vs. other religions etc.
Why God does not exist:
http://www.amazon.com/Non-Existence-God-Nicholas-Everitt/dp/0415301076
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/
http://www.amazon.com/Impossibility-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591021200/
http://www.amazon.com/Improbability-God-Michael-Martin/dp/1591023815/
http://www.thesixwaysofatheism.com/
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist; by Victor J. Stenger
> 1.) What scientific evidence does atheism present in the argument against God?
http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520
Take a look at this book sometime. Someone with a phd in physics wrote it. I think he knows more about logic and what can or cannot be deduced from the scientific method.
https://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520
This book answers your question (with actual evidence).
This is exactly what we're talking about right here.
>Pascal’s Wager
>The Authority of the Bible
>Quality of Life
Calling these arguments at all is very generous. Pascals wager comes the closest to being taken seriously but has multiple fatal flaws, such as the fact that if there is no God and you take him up on his wager so to speak, you waste your entire existence, making it a poor bet. Then there's the many gods problem as well.
>The Actionable Conclusion
This is neither an argument, nor supporting of a belief in God.
>Personal Experience
Hume has an excellent response to most of what could be considered an argument in here. However most of what you've written here does not constitute an argument, and should not rationally be enough to convince anyone else. It certainly doesn't qualify as, " any rational argument, supported by evidence."
>Kalam's Cosmological Argument
For the sake of time, I'm going to refer you to the wikipedia article here. There are numerous problems with the KCA, none of which can be satisfactorily resolved, and it does not have any supporting evidence. Since the argument is not logically sound, valid, and non-vacuous, it isn't taken seriously in modern debate except for it's role in the history of philosophy.
>Aristotle’s Cosmological Argument
This is no stronger than the KCA above, and has many of the same problems. It doesn't prove a God exists even if true, has no supporting evidence, and must resort to special pleading for the "first cause" to not have a cause itself.
>The Fine Tuned Universe Argument
This is probably the only argument in the batch that's even taken seriously at all, but it has the most problems, probably due to being more well-defined and claiming it has supporting evidence (which none of the rest can).
>Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”
If you want more supporting evidence against fine tuning/god of the gaps, wikipedia has almost everything you could possibly want cited, and Victor Stenger has written a sound rebuttal to it and all common counter arguments within God: The Failed Hypothesis.