Atheists are quick to dismiss God as the causal factor of all that exists without evidence to support this claim.
Per the burden of proof, that is the correct course of action. The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief. Not before.
Example: I tell you that the causal factor of all that exists is, in fact, Zoroaster. Do you accept my claim at face value, or would you need (a lot) more evidence before believing it?
They hide behind the different theories surrounding the "Big Bang" or the "Big Splat."
The BBT is currently the best model that we, as a species, have to explain the beginning of the universe. Using it is hardly "hiding behind" them.
We don't know what caused the big bang, or indeed if it required a cause at all. None of this necessitates a deity to explain it, let alone a deity for which no evidence exits.
However, they completely ignore that these events need a trigger. Things do not just happen, there is reason for them. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Ah, the prime mover argument. That's never been debunked, has it?
Atheism does not answer the question of causality and therefore cannot be taken seriously, scientifically speaking.
First of all, the scientific method is basically methodological naturalism--the study of the natural world. Supernatural claims don't fall under its purview, so to suggest that theism is scientifically valid is to miss the point of science entirely.
By the way--scientifically speaking, we don't know if causality is even necessary to explain the cosmos.
The idea that God does not exist or that there is no evidence is unfounded. For centuries philosophers, religious thinkers and scientists have offered all kinds of proof for the existence of God.
...and they've all been debunked.
The suggestion that there is no evidence for God is simply not true. There is indeed evidence for God.
Then present it.
By the way--this God for which you claim evidence exists--what caused it? Remember--whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Whether or not one wants to accept it, then that is another issue.
Indeed.
Nevertheless, the rejection of evidence does not invalidate that evidence.
Similarly, the rejection of the burden of proof does not invalidate the burden of proof.
It merely shows sophophobia.
Sophophobia--a fear of learning.
So, on the one hand, we have people devoting their lives to the quest to understand the origins of our universe, and on the other hand, we have people saying "Goddidit!" and then ridiculing the other camp.
Which group is afraid of learning?
