“Atheists are quick to dismiss God as the causal factor of all that exists without evidence to support this claim."
Actually, no. You can’t turn it to my burden of proof.
See, I dismiss God. All gods. Every single one of them is an obvious fairy tale and just-so story. No one has decent evidence for any of them. Except Aphrodite. She is hot.
Anyway, having already dismissed the creator gods like Ptah, Jehovah, Odin, Zeus, then i don’t need any additional evidence to claim that these people who never existed didn’t make the universe. It’s, like, the only logical conclusion.
“They hide behind the different theories surrounding the "Big Bang" or the "Big Splat."”
Hide? No, I’ve been convinced that the science is sound.
I’m not HIDING if i accept it.
“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.”
I do not have much experience with things that ‘begin to exist.’ Everything around me already existed, but was changed in form. Chairs came from lumber that came from trees that came from seeds that came from trees that came from seeds and on back.
I don’t think humans have enough experience with ‘things that begin to exist’ to talk knowledgably about their causes.
And even the Big Bang starts with the monobloc. Nothing that just started existing.
So, I’m going to ignore this rule you pulled out of your ass as i don’t see much support for it.
“Atheism does not answer the question of causality and therefore cannot be taken seriously, scientifically speaking.”
Why not? Atheism just says that I don’t believe in gods. I do not HAVE to account for causality in order to find all the explanations for gods to be uncompelling.
“The idea that God does not exist or that there is no evidence is unfounded.”
My experience is that most of the evidence for god applies equally well to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or is just presupposition. Or really poor math, poor history, poorer science, and so on.
“For centuries philosophers, religious thinkers and scientists have offered all kinds of proof for the existence of God.”
Heh.
God is supernatural.
Science is purely naturalistic.
Scientists CANNOT offer any kind of proof for the existence of god.
This is part of that ‘poorer science’ i mentioned up above.
“The suggestion that there is no evidence for God is simply not true.”
Uh huh. Sure. I believe you. Of course.
“There is indeed evidence for God. Whether or not one wants to accept it, then that is another issue.”
No, it’s the same issue. If it’s actual evidence then I would HAVE to accept it. In my experience, none of it ‘proves’ god, the best you can do is stuff that ‘would be consistent with a god if he existed.’
“Nevertheless, the rejection of evidence does not invalidate that evidence. It merely shows sophophobia.”
Hmm. I’ve been going to schools and training for the last 45 years. If i suffered sophophobia I’d have been kicked out of the Navy very early, certainly before spending a year in my C school, much less having a job where i learn new weapon systems in order to teach them to others.
You’re just butthurt that your ‘evidence’ is evaluated and not accepted.