Atheist, the argument of "No evidence no God" is plain silly don’t you think?

Question

Ok atheist, you motto is “NO EVIDENCE, NO GOD”

Ok, if there is no evidence, there is no such thing as God.
But when it comes to the theory of the big bang, why do most of you believe that the universe will collapse on itself creating another universe?
There is not evidence for the contraction of our universe, IN FACT, the evidence points out that the universe will expand forever!
Ok, my question is why do you believe in theoretical science topics such as the big bang theory, string theory, etc… if there is no evidence for strings or even the contraction of our universe?
Why don’t you apply the same criteria as when you say NO evidence, no god?
Just think about it!

Answer 1

i am not an atheist nor a christian but the argument you say is silly is as silly as saying that there is a god just because a 2000 year old book says so.
all i'm saying is that either you believe or you don't. there will be no argument that sways a believer into not believing just as there is no argument that sways a non believer into believing.once everyone figures this out and stops the verbal attacks on both sides the better off the world will be...
it boils down to a very simple answer...."to each their own"

Answer 2

I don't know rather the Universe will collapse or not. Frankly the majority of the evidence right now is that it won't.

String theory is at least five years out of date too. M Theory combines the five versions of string theory quite nicely. It is still relatively untested, but that will be changing in the near future. I'm open to modifying my thoughts here.

There is substantial evidence for the Big Bang. The most convincing is the predicted background radiation coming from all directions. Predictive ability is the best test of a theory that there is. There are several large ones that the Big Bang has, mostly that it is the necessary result of taking Einstein's VERY tested equations back in time.

Answer 3

Evidence of the big bang:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

Read the bit on Observational evidence:

Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the assumption that observers located anywhere in the universe would make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. The next most important observational evidence was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first cooled sufficiently to form neutral hydrogen and allow space to become transparent to light, and its discovery led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe. A third important line of evidence is the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

Ockham's Razor is also important here. All the aspects of Genesis have now been proven to be wrong - so why the need for the obsolete concept of any supernatural - super being like god? Surly you are better off consigning him to Holiwood like the rest and just stiking to reality?

Answer 4

OK, I don't believe that the universe will collapse on itself creating a new universe. Actually string theory is old. It's now M theory. Pretty interesting. There is no evidence of god, and I have no belief. If you think that's funny, that's your right. It's just what I believe. I'm interested in the universe theory. I don't necessarily "believe" them.

Answer 5

Well to tell you the truth Bryan, I honestly don't really give that much of a damn about how it came to be. We have a future to think of, that should be a bit more important then trying to look behind us.

But the fact that I really don't care all that much doesn't erase the fact that science does RESEARCH to try to figure these things out. It tries to piece together the clues, and currently that is what the picture looks like to them. And just because they don't have a fully completed framed illustration of it doesn't mean that your ridiculous "creation" junk is true.

At least THEY are not doing the equivalent of religion...pick up an old early 1900s first grade science book and assume that is all there is, don't question, just believe that nonsense.

Answer 6

But everything is moving away from the same point in space. So yes, the big bang has evidence. There is no contradictory evidence either.

Making a hypothesis based off observations is a valid way to go but when that hypothesis can't pass the basics criteria then that is no longer a valid hypothesis. Your god failed.

Answer 7

Who said we "beleive" any of that? Science is about exploration and letting the evidence lead us to the truth. You can build any straw man you like, but the fact is this, Pointing out that there is a lack of evidence for one thing does not provide evidence for your god. By the way, there is evidence for the "big bang" theory, you yourself said it, the universe is expanding.

The argument no evidence = no subject is a fallacy, however, when there is no evidence to support a model, while there is evidence that falsifies that model, it is clearly safe to say that said model is incorrect. Apply this notion to every god model there is, i am certain all of them fail the test.

Answer 8

All the physical evidence points to the big bang and evolution being true. Now does physical creation mislead or inform our understanding of its Creator? This is a theological question addressed by such great theologians as St Thomas Aquinas whose views seems to have been adopted by the Catholic Church (see paragraphs 63 from the link below).
No matter how you interpret the physical evidence, the only proof of the existence of God must come from God. That is God must reveal himself (or herself, or itself) to each and every individual consciousness.

While God does seem to appreciate your searching for him, ultimately it is about God finding you not you finding God.

"63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution."

PS: Please read the whole document.

Answer 9

Theories in science are not guesses, they are schema for explaining known data (scientific facts). There are scientific facts that these theories are best explanations for. The idea of a god is superfluous, it adds nothing to our understanding and predicts nothing about the universe. It is not even a scientific concept, since it cannot be tested.

Answer 10

Did I ever say to you that I believe that the universe will contract? I didn't say anything of the sort, you say?
Then quit assuming you know what I believe.

(For the record, I believe nothing of the sort. I don't know enough about string theory to reject or accept it.)