Funny that people seem to think that gods and the big bang are mutually exclusive 
The big bang would allow a god if it was:
1. a deist god (as in, he created the universe than never did anything else within it),
2. a lazy god (a big bang requires no energy input, and is incredibly inefficient with a life/empty space ratio)
Thus while it doesn't exactly exclude any god, it does exclude an active christian god (or any of the other religions gods).
Again with the generalizations...
A god could have simply popped into existence AFTER the universe started. Or a god could have "caused" the big bang. Even the Christian god can be applied to this, except for the fundamentalist's version I guess. Or a god could simply be apathetic, or representing a natural force (in the latter, it'd also come into existence), and simply be there, doing this or that. Nobody said a god actually had to DO something with their power. There is literally no limit when you're talking about religion (the line has to be drawn somewhere though).
To this and others...
In all honesty, what god-like characteristics are left? Since we agree that the deist god can still theoretically exist (though is relatively boring), what characteristics of the well known gods could still exist? If he does exist, and matters to us in any way, then he is measurable in some form. Thus disproving his existence requires further definition of what his existence is.
We know, for example, that prayer does not cause improved recovery from dozens of terminal illnesses (and recover worse if they know they're being prayed for, like performance anxiety). We know a lot of the characteristics that have been applied to an existent god have been dis-proven over time, and I personally can't think of any left that matter to the human species.
While the proposition that we can not prove a negative exists, we can prove a negative under certain conditions. While I can't prove that an undefined being exists somewhere, I can say that under the conditions of the universe that we have observed and the theories of a relevant god that have been presented, we have proven each theory false or meaningless.
An all powerful god could have popped into existence shortly after I think I started typing this message and mearly created the universe just then with all the reassuring back story to make me think I've been living a life all these years when really it's just how she created the memories in my brain. Likewise for the rest of you.
It's about as likely as any other god theory.
I'm a bit late to the party, but let me try to dissuade this brain-in-a-jar philosophy
- If I am the measure of intelligence, then I exist (the original conclusion to that philosophy)
- If other people are at least as intelligent as me, or come up with things that I do no think of, then I know that they exist as much as I do.
- If other people exist separately from my own conscious, and they exist, then they would continue to exist when I stop thinking about them.
-Thus complex interactions would still happen, that have nothing to do with me in any way.
- If it is constructed for me, then there would be far less complex interactions between others when I am not around. Wars, politics, engineering, and so forth that I am incapable of understanding would not happen.
- If they have complex interactions when I am not around, then they are just as complex as me, which makes them being constructs of a higher being a moot point, since I fit the same definition.
- If people in general exist, but the world is created around us by a collective conscious, then our collective beliefs would cause the complex conclusions of scientific experiments.
- Thus our expectations would more often be validated, rather than disproven.
- We would have proved long ago that diseases are caused my the balance of 4 bodily humors, that light and spirit travel in ether, and the human soul would weighs 21 grams. These were all dominant theories for a very long time.
- If the people in general exist, and the world is created around us by yet another being, then there would be some focus to the creation (as their must be for it to be called a creation rather than a byproduct or waste product).
- If the world is created around people, and the focus is us, then the creator is blind and dumb. He would have to be to think any of our designs as good designs.
- Waste disposal does not go next to vital-for-life continuation
- Eyes should not have blood vessels over the very things that sense light
- dozens of other examples if you need them
- If the world is created around us, and the focus is not us
- Then every deity whos focus IS us is incompatible with the universe we see.
So thus we come to these conclusions
- Our consciousness's, the only things we can be sure exist, are not complex enough to create the experiences we have
- Even if our consciousness was complex enough to create experiences, they would not agree with the world we actually do experience
- Every form of existence that requires a continually made construct around us would necessitate several things
1. That the senses we have are continuously updated with science-consistent information
2. That the creator is worse at engineering than humans are
I find those propositions incompatible with a brain-in-a-jar scenario.
Edit: I'm not satisfied with "it's unlikely", as I personally think that a meaningful god is, in general, disproven. We can always create a new version of go that fits with verifiable evidence, but it is a weaker concept each time. I think we can cut down the concept until nothing left exists in any meaningful way.
Author
Topic: Atheism Redux [READ THE FIRST POST] (Read 187801 times)