As I was reading through Victor J. Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis!
Link - God: The Failed hypothesis
I was wondering how Stenger's view on God affected others? I myself, takes the agnostic point of view.

What say you?



Regards,
Tom

You kind of have to tell us a bit about his view because I don't think all of us read it and by the time I buy it and read this thread will be gone.

from the two links it seems he uses scientific reasoning to try to debunk God Dawkings style...we just discussing that?

Thats fine! Stenger lays out the evidence from cosmology, particle physics and quantum mechanics showing that the universe appears exactly as it should if there is no creator. Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology, and he scurried for safety down the rabbit hole of physics. The laws and constants of the universe, we were told, are too good to be true: a setup, carefully tuned to allow the eventual evolution of life. It needed a good physicist to show us the fallacy.

Link - Prometheus Books



Regards,
Tom

Here is a link that gives a rundown on the arguments in the book:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenge...ess/Summary.htm

Question how does stenger now how an universe should appear if there is no creator.

I mean if this universe does have a creator who doesn't want everyone to have direct evidence of him. For whatever reason/s. This universe would appear as it should if there is no creator.

Stenger makes (or collates) some good arguments for the various gods (especially the Abrahamic God) nonexistence. As described, these gods would appear to be contradictory to the evidence of our existence and the environment in which that happens.

I agree with the general premise that the various gods described in worldly religions probably do not exist. There is still room for divinity in the cosmos, but it would appear to be such a divinity as we have no comprehension of, and no interaction with.

I believe that God too had a Creator, and it would have been the Primordial Vibration of the 'Big Bang'. As Cymatics shows us, vibrations creates order from chaos. So, given that concept one can see how the Universe could be created without the need of God.

i think any kind of scientific argument to dissprove god is just as ridikulous as any sort of argument that proves god.
just think its impossible either way, i guess its possible to maybe dissprove the need for a creator but that doesnt meant there definitivly isnt one, it could just be our limited understanding limiting our perceptions.
anyone who is certain either way i find slightly silly, altho atheist's who'r 100% sure i find more hypocritical than a beleiver, a beleiver can rely on faith or personal experience which u can't really argue with, whereas science is all about proof and facts and i personally think its impossible to dissprove something like the concept of god, same with things like life after death.
if ur belief system is based on a scientific empirical way of thinking u can say there is no evidence for something so you dont "think" it exists but i dont see how u can ever be 100% sure without proof. i find people like dawkins incredibly arrogant and patronising, as if he knows the 'truth' and everyone else is just an idiot, typical human egotistic arrogance imho, how can he possibly ever know anything like this for certain, i just think as humans our perceptions and capability to understand the universe fully are very limited and to think we are advanced is very very debatable. i wonder what the humans a million years from now (if we havent commited suicide as a species) will think of our theories and perceptions.

qft

science has limits...the people who do not respect them do not respect science IMHO