Demonstrating the Non-existence of God with the Stenger Method

More and more leaders in the scientific community have uncovered the non-existence of god. This scientific conclusion has been reviewed by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins[1], neuroscientist Sam Harris[2], physicist Victor Stenger[3], evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, [4] and developmental biologist PZ Myers[5]. However, a literature search uncomfortably shows that none of these scientists have ever conducted a single experiment to detect the existence of god. Given that it is essential the scientific community rid the world of irrational, deleterious god-belief, I have sought to rectify this situation and provide these leading scientists with the data they clearly need.

Stenger has recently outlined a novel method to detect God

If a properly controlled experiment were to come up with an observation that cannot be explained by natural means, then science would have to take seriously the possibility of a world beyond matter.

This Stenger Method was used to analyze water in its liquid state and the results clearly show god-belief to be delusional.

Methods

Two sterile glasses were filled with 200 ml deionized water. While invoking all possible gods, the researcher prayed that one glass of water would be turned into wine. It was made clear to the putative deities that their existence was being tested. The recited prayer read as follows:

Calling all gods, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and other possible magical beings. You are hereby being challenged in the Name of Science to prove your existence within 24 hours by changing one of these glasses of water into wine. These data will be shared with the world and your reputation and existence is at stake. Please respond. Amen.

The glasses were then put into a safe recently purchased from WalMart. After 24 hours, the safe was opened and the glasses were inspected visually and chemically.

Results

As can be seen from Figure 1, while one glass was prayed over, and the other was shunned, both glasses contain a clear water-like liquid. The contents of both glasses were then tested with the chemoreceptors in the researcher’s oral and nasal cavities. No wine was detected.

2-glasses-of-water
Figure 1. Glasses tested for divine intervention. Note the lack of differences in the experimental and control groups.

Discussion

Religion is the root of all evil. As many leading scientists have shown, the best way to eliminate this plague is to use the power of the scientific method to demonstrate that god does not exist. This study represents the first experiment that directly tests for the existence of god. Previous studies have tested for the efficacy of prayer in a clinical setting[6], but these studies were flawed in not making it clear to the putative deities that their existence was being called into question.

The failure to turn water into wine (Figure 1) can only be explained by the non-existence of deities, as deities, by definition, should have been able to meet this scientific test. No further testing is required as Science, through the use of the Stenger Method, has now falsified god.

Acknowledgements: I would like to acknowledge the New Atheist leaders who have been trailblazers in using science to discredit god-belief. Victor Stenger is especially acknowledged for all his hard work in coming up with the revolutionary Stenger Method. This study would not have been possible without all their hard work as I stand on the shoulders of giants.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, God, New Atheism, Science, Scientism, Victor Stenger and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Demonstrating the Non-existence of God with the Stenger Method

  1. This post is an articulate assault on reason.

    And since reason is fundamental to science, this post is also an articulate assault on science.

    So let’s reason out why this must be so.

    The purpose of science is to gain clear understanding of the physical universe.

    That is all science is.

    God, by definition, is the Creator of the universe.

    Consequently, God is not a physical part of the universe and therefore cannot be approached with science.

    Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that this post is an articulate expression of absurdity.

    That’s because this post is based on the error that God can be approached using science.

    If fact, all atheist arguments against the existence of God, just as atheism itself, are based on absurdities.

  2. TFBW says:

    The two glass experiment isn’t really the Stenger Method, though, is it? It’s the converse of the Stenger Method. It’s a properly controlled experiment which exhibited precisely no behaviour which can’t be explained by known physical processes, whereas the Stenger Method requires the opposite outcome.

    As formulated, the Stenger Method can demonstrate the explanatory need for a world beyond matter in the case of a successful outcome, but not the lack of such a need, except in specific cases. All we can say for certain based on the two glass experiment is that no supernatural being exists who is simultaneously capable of turning a glass of water into wine inside a locked safe, inclined to do so when challenged in this manner, and sufficiently aware of the goings-on in the universe that the challenge was noticed. This eliminates only a very narrow possible range of conceptually possible beings, and, as such, it’s not clear that the two glass experiment achieves anything of note as a Stenger Method “failure” case.

    Now, if atheism is the lack of belief in a god, justified by the lack of evidence for a god, and by “lack of evidence” we mean the lack of a successful Stenger Method experiment, then we have the makings of a reasonable argument. There are a couple of obvious caveats, though: for one, the lack of a successful Stenger Method experiment might simply come down to the lack of research. Seriously, how much research based on the Stenger Method is actually taking place? Approximately none, right? That’s not a lack of evidence, it’s a lack of science.

    On top of that, I think we have a deeper philosophical problem: how do we know when a Stenger Method experiment has succeeded? What are the exact conditions under which an observation can not be explained by natural means? Bear in mind the popular atheist claim that divine activity was used as an explanation in times past for phenomena that we now explain naturally. What are the implications for the Stenger Method?

    And, ultimately, why should we accept the Stenger Method as indicative of anything anyhow? Just because a plausible-sounding natural explanation can be given for a phenomenon doesn’t mean that the explanation is true, or that all possible supernatural explanations are false. What evidence or reasoning do we have to support the efficacy of the Stenger Method? Nothing remotely persuasive that I can see.

  3. Rayan Zehn says:

    I’m pretty sure this post was sarcasm. Jeez!

  4. BenYachov says:

    >If a properly controlled experiment were to come up with an observation that cannot be explained by natural means, then science would have to take seriously the possibility of a world beyond matter.

    God-of-the-Gaps much?

    >Calling all gods, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and other possible magical beings. You are hereby being challenged in the Name of Science to prove your existence within 24 hours by changing one of these glasses of water into wine. These data will be shared with the world and your reputation and existence is at stake. Please respond. Amen.

    So this proves theistic personalist isolanti deities, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, and magical beings don’t exist?

    As a Catholic I don’t believe these things exist either.

    Being a Classic Theistic I could have told him all this with Philosophy.

    Gnus are just sad.

  5. eveysolara says:

    you obviously forgot to gut a lamb.

  6. phillip lightweis-goff says:

    silenceofmind says:
    “God, by definition, is the Creator of the universe. Consequently, God is not a physical part of the universe and therefore cannot be approached with science.”

    Unfortunately, this also precludes any other approach given our phenomenal boundedness… unless you’d like to “define” one from thin air?

  7. Billy Squibs says:

    Gooooo Science!

  8. BenYachov says:

    >>God, by definition, is the Creator of the universe. Consequently, God is not a physical part of the universe and therefore cannot be approached with science.”

    >Unfortunately, this also precludes any other approach given our phenomenal boundedness… unless you’d like to “define” one from thin air?

    Positivist Much? God is proven by philosophy not science. Science alone is self contradictory.

    Blinded by Scientism
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/

    Recovering Sight after Scientism

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184/

    Positivists are the young earth creationists and fideists of Atheism. I can respect disbelief in God or gods based on philosophy. People who claim disbelief based on “science” are knuckle dragging morons on the level of the YEC guy who claims the Second Law of Thermodynamics “refutes” the evolution of species.

    Scratch a Gnu Atheist find a fundamentalist.

  9. Kevin says:

    Positivists are the young earth creationists and fideists of Atheism. I can respect disbelief in God or gods based on philosophy. People who claim disbelief based on “science” are knuckle dragging morons on the level of the YEC guy who claims the Second Law of Thermodynamics “refutes” the evolution of species.

    A bit harsher than need be, perhaps, but I do understand how many of us have dealt with New Atheists long enough to have lost all patience with their antics. That being said, from all my research on both sides of the aisle, I’ve concluded that science has not even scratched the surface of either disproving God or removing the need for a creator. I love arguing with atheists when they throw science at me, and I completely agree with that science and then explain that the implications they find from this “God-disproving” science are no less valid than those I find, which support the idea of a creator. From the same science! Never had an atheist with enough integrity to admit that obvious fact, but alas, the show goes on.

  10. phillip lightweis-goff says:

    Kevin Says:
    “I love arguing with atheists when they throw science at me, and I completely agree with that science and then explain that the implications they find from this “God-disproving” science are no less valid than those I find, which support the idea of a creator. From the same science!”

    —Which again suggests that metaphyscial matters are closed to our purview. BenYachov may presume that “philosophy” (vagueness becomes no one, B) has such a power, but that’s as far as it goes: a presumption.

    Play in the make-believe all you wish, but don’t presume to pass it off as anything more than that.

  11. Bilbo says:

    eveysolara: “you obviously forgot to gut a lamb.

    More importantly, he forgot to have a wedding with no wine and a nagging Jewish mother.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s