We're finally here, the meat and potatoes of this website. Here, I will attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God under the strict and unbiased guidance of the Scientific Method. If you find yourself reading this page before you've read the other prior examples, then this analysis will 'not' make sense to you. It is absolutely mandatory that you read the leading examples before reading the following. Please click on the 'Proof' section of the BetterHuman.org website and start there.

The definition of 'God' that we are going to use here is the contemporary religious one that also includes other popular versions (Allah, Buddha, etc.), and includes the common elements of communicability (praying, etc.) and afterlife (heaven, reincarnation, etc.). It seems a common argument from the religious that there is no evidence to prove there isn't a god, so, let's test that hypothesis:

Hypothesis: I theorize that there isn't a god

To begin with, this hypothesis is not acceptable. Why? Well, for the same reasons we can't create a hypothesis disproving the existence of Leprechauns (from our prior example), we can't make any assumptions about the existence of a god. Since we haven't yet tested the existence of a god using the Scientific Method, by the rule of 'non-existence' until strong evidence is provided, a god cannot yet be considered part of reality and so it will be impossible to test the non-existence of because technically it is already proven non-existent. Remember once again, the Scientific Method's golden rule is that nothing exists unless the Scientific Method can support that it does.

So how then do we address this hypothesis? Well, as in our Leprechaun example, we can be clever and 'invert' the hypothesis into an acceptable form, such as:

New hypothesis: I theorize that a god might exist

Finally, we now have an acceptable hypothesis that doesn't make any assumptions, and also 'indirectly' answers the first hypothesis, because the answers for each hypothesis should be the exact opposite to each other.

If you still don't understand why the first hypothesis was unacceptable and the second one is, it probably means you don't fully understand the introduction and leading examples in the BetterHuman.org 'Proof' section. Again, the following analysis will 'not' make sense unless you read the entire 'Proof' section.

Color Table:

Strong counter-evidence	Weak counter-evidence	Not useful	Weak evidence	Good evidence	Strong evidence	Not applicable

First-hand Evidence
Type of Evidence	Our instincts consider this to be..	The Scientific Method considers this to be..
Tangibility There is no direct physical evidence whatsoever of gods themselves. By definition, they are un-see-able or otherwise physically un-sense-able, even with any kind of technology imaginable; they are non-material, directly incommunicable, and completely devoid of physical structure.	..the reason we need 'faith'. He reveals himself in ways that allow us to prove our commitment. He doesn't have any reason to prove himself to you.	..unfortunate. Would be strong support if we had even a scrap of physical evidence of this entity.
Influence The Earth, the skies, the stars, the ocean, and you; they are all created by him.	..simply glorious! How magnificent is our creator to so masterfully and perfectly assemble such a precise and organized universe, and us to fit perfectly within it.	..very difficult to understand how the explanation for life and the rest of our universe, can default to an anthropologically-defined deity of no definable substance or character. Sure life seems to be too complicated for us to understand, but by adding an unjustified 'creator' to the mix for no other reason than to just 'have' an answer, all you'll accomplish is to increase to the list of 'unknowns', not answer any. Why couldn't it just as easily have been aliens that created us? How about the Tooth Fairy? Who's to say she wasn't our creator?
Interpretation A god must have created all this because it is the only thing conceivable that would have the power and intelligence to create something so fine-tuned and balanced as the universe is today.	..very compelling evidence because it makes 'perfect sense'. I don't understand any of those scientific jabberjaws and their Big Bang monkey theories.	..completely unsupported and meaningless. This is the exact equivalent as saying Tooth fairies are responsible for taking people's teeth. There's no reason to assume that the observations have to have an intelligent causation to it. There seems to be an unjustified connection between the unexplained, and the manifestation of unverifiable entities to explain it. The Scientific Method doesn't allow for such great leaps in explanation.
Intuition It must be the almighty God that made all this. It's too complicated to have happened without intelligence.	..the only answer that 'feels' right.	..an overly simplistic take on the universe. There are many very plausible explanations for how the universe came about that preclude the need for a creator. The Big Bang for instance, can provide much insight into how our galaxies, stars, planets, came to be, and the theory of evolution can fill in the gaps for explaining how life first began. In contrast to this much more scientifically-endorsed perspective, the theory of a 'god' is considerably lacking in meritability.
Desire I know in my heart he is real, because I can 'feel' his presence.	..very compelling. The heart knows the truth. Trust your heart.	..reckless reasoning and grossly discrediting. There is no logical foundation whatsoever to the 'god' explanation, only the great desire for it to be true so that all the peripheral awards that are associated with this paradigm (immortality, safety, etc.), can be harvested.

Second-Hand Information Credibility
Type of Information	Our instincts consider this to be..	The Scientific Method considers this to be..
Distinguished Source Many scientists and other well-respected organizations subscribe to the existence of a god.	..powerful evidence. Looks like even your own kind would disagree with you..	..completely misrepresented, and the opposite holds true. In reality, the more intelligent and educated a person is, the more statistically likely they are to 'not' believe in the existence of a god. The mere presence of the odd respected scientist that persists in his faith, should not overshadow the large percentage of the greatest scientific minds today that 'are' atheist, or at least dismissive of the notion of a god that the hypothesis suggests.
Agenda Source Millions of churches and other religious associations worldwide all purport the existence of a god. Plus don't forget about all the evidence in the Bible/Koran/Torah! What about all those big beautiful churches, and pomp, pagentry, and gaudy rituals? The beauty of it all is profoundly compelling.	..powerful support. Anything that stands the test of time must have good credibility.	..the single most important counter-evidence there is. In all of history, never has a tyranny based upon unsubstantiated misinformation (refer to the Bible credibility example) and whiz-bang special effects, ever reached such pinnacles of power or wealth; and the incomprehensible amount of revenue flowing into the churches as a result of this fantasy perspective, is the most profound example imaginable of victimizing the innocent and naive.
Mass Support A vast majority of people believe in a god.	..more strong evidence. You going to tell me all those people are lying? Making up stories?	..not relevant either way. Despite the fact that no matter which religion you subscribe to, you will still be a minority because no single religious belief represents more than half the people in the world, it doesn't matter whether everyone believes in gods or not because this type of evidence is worthless to the Scientific Method.
Hearsay, Rumor, or Opinion People tell me all the time about their wonderful experiences when communicating with their god.	..somewhat reliable. Though my neighbor has been known to stretch the truth now and again.	..inconsequential whether they're lying or not. It doesn't count as evidence either way.

Once again, the instincts throw their full support behind the existence of a god. It seems the rewards of immortality outweigh any need whatsoever for a truly objective measurement of credibility. The Scientific Method, however, keenly pierces through the obvious agenda and self-serving motivations behind the persistence of this god concept, and assigns the possibility of there being a god to be extremely unlikely. In fact, because of the degree of agenda behind the bulk of the evidence, the Scientific Method says that God is less likely to exist than Leprechauns!

Instinctual Conclusion

Feel his light upon you. You cannot deny his presence!

Scientific Method Conclusion

God is most likely fantasy.

© BetterHuman.org