Read God: The Failed Hypothesis for Free Online Page A

magnets.
    Despite these empirical facts, some theoretical basis exists for magnetic monopoles, and they have been searched for extensively with no success. The current standard model contains perhaps a single magnetic monopole in the visible universe, which has no effect on anything. That is, the model does include a magnetic monopole, but we can proceed to use our conventional electromagnetic theory, which contains no magnetic monopoles, for all practical applications.
    Let us apply this same line of reasoning to God. When we show that a particular model of God fails to agree with the data, then people would not be very rational in using such a model as a guide to their religious and personal activities. While it remains possible that a god exists analogous to the lonely magnetic monopole, one who has no effect on anything, there is no point worshiping him. The gods we will consider are important elements of scientific models that can be empirically tested, such as by the successful consequences of prayer.
    The Scientific God Model
    So, let us now define a scientific God model, a
theory of God.
A supreme being is hypothesized to exist having the following attributes:
    1. God is the creator and preserver of the universe.
    2. God is the architect of the structure of the universe and the author of the laws of nature.
    3. 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 lifeforms.
    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.
    Most of these attributes are traditionally associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, and many are shared by the gods of diverse religions. Note, however, that the traditional attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence—the 30 characteristics usually associated with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God—have been omitted. Such a God is already ruled out by the arguments of logical inconsistency summarized above. While the 30s will show up on occasion as supplementary attributes, they will rarely be needed. For example, the case against a creator god will apply to any such god, even an evil or imperfect one. Furthermore, as will be emphasized throughout, the God of the monotheistic scriptures—Old Testament or Hebrew Bible, New Testament, and Qur’an—is not omnibenevolent, and so not ruled out by logical inconsistency. The observable effects that such a God may be expected to have are still testable by the normal, objective processes of science.
    The Generic Argument
    The scientific argument against the existence of God will be a modified form of the lack-of-evidence argument:
    1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
    2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
    3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
    4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God
may
exist.
    5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does
not
exist.
    Recall that it is easier to falsify a hypothesis than verify one. The best we can do if the data support a particular god model is acknowledge that faith in such a God is rational. However, just as we should not use a failed physical model that does not work, it would be unwise for us to guide our lives by religions that worship any gods that fail to agree with the