Nintentacle said:
There is burden of proof on both sides; No piece of evidence can indefinitely prove that God does or doesn't exist. Although, I don't understand the Big Bang, it doesn't make sense to me. How can nothing, at all, exist, and the Big Bang happen? Because if something existed before the Universe, than that was a part of the Universe, because the Universe contains everything that existed. Wouldn't it make more sense to say the Universe always existed (In the sense of time), and the Earth, Sun, Moon, etc. were formed over the course of billions of years? That's what I would say if I were an atheist. |
No, it is not, it is always on the party that makes the claim. You need to prove that something exists, not the other way around. If it was the other way around you would need to prove that leprechauns don't exist.
The thing about the Big Bang is that all of the evidence that we have supports the theory, we have actual proof to back up our assertions. It is still a theory for the same reason that our understanding of gravity is still theoretical, we need to be 100% certain about every aspect of the theory before it becomes scientific fact. Until that day in the distant future we will continue to teach it as a principle because the scientific community knows that it is correct, just not every single last detail.
That being said, if god needed to exist in order to create the Universe, why does nothing need to exist before god in order to create it? This god character does not explain anything without raising further questions. Additionally, there is literally zero evidence to support the existence of god, therefore I remain an atheist.
