Atheists, answer me this.?

Question

What evidence do we have against a creator that started the life of the first single-celled organism and then left us alone/studies us/ignores us?

A creator that started the big bang?



As far-fetched as this is, do we have evidence against it?

Fundie Creationists, don't answer please.

Agnostics may support, and I expect Atheists to give reason against it.

I dont think you understand. Anyone with half a mind knows today's mainstream religion is flawed. I am simply asking if there is any evidence against a creator making the first single celled organism. I know Christianity is silly. No free thinker has any reason to say they believe in a God, but we have no knowlege of that situation. I am an atheist, and I was only asking. I hoped you people would give me good reason against agnosticism. Agnostics (no knowlege) see the situation cannot be affirmed. I have never met a agnostic who can't affirm that the christian fiath is flawed. They state that the long shot idea of intelligent design. They normally think it is silly, and they definately do not accept any fundamental creationistic beliefs. I just wanted evidence against a creator, besides logic. We can not prove there is not a God, but its a goofy long shot. Agnostics are almost Atheist, they just don't want to make an assumption, no matter how strong and obvious it is.

Answer 1

I am an agnostic, but understand and respect the reasoning that there is nothing to SUPPORT it. Just because you can't give evidence to disprove something doesn't mean it's believable.

Answer 2

There is no evidence for it happening by a creator that started the Big Bang. I don't generally start holding a positive belief in something unless there is some evidence to suggest it is so. Humans have been plugging God in as the answer for things they didn't know for a long time and so far it hasn't borne out. Lightening from Zeus. No, we know now Zeus wasn't responsible. Disease from God's wrath? Germ theory has proven much more useful and we can now cure many disease with research and medicine. Epilepsy caused by demons? No, organic brain condition. So I withhold judgment on the cause of the Big Bang until we have some reason to suspect it was a creator or whatever else. The whole creator explanation as first cause only begs the question where did the creator come from, what was their first cause? To which religious people say well God is exempt from needing a cause. Why? Isn't that just making it up as you go a long with no proof so you can believe what you wish?

Answer 3

There is no evidence against it.


Just as there is no evidence that the Big Bang was not really a Big Sneeze by a giant multidimensional space goat.

Or that the first life was not a result of an impromptu 'rest stop' by a intoxicated alien flying his spaceship home.


But generally I require some actual evidence of something before I start considering it possibly true. Until that evidence turns up I am forced to give an "I do not know" answer for the causes of these events.

Answer 4

We have no evidence against it, however we also have no evidence against future man time traveling and starting the process.

Each are equally ridiculous and tenable and we might as well believe that Leprechauns were the cause.

Starting with a premise that a God started everything, is the same as starting with a premise that cheese causes gravity. We have no evidence to build on, so until then it is not worth our time entertaining it.

There are enough religious people out there trying to find scientific evidence for God. If it exists, it will one day be found. However, up until now, the religious have a pretty strong track record of manufacturing data and misleading people about science in order to promote faith. Given that, we are forced to be very critical and cautious of any "God Cause" theory that comes our way.

Answer 5

What evidence have you that the creator requires no creator above him?

This is the type of non-question that makes the FSM so humourous and pertinent. As several people have already pointed out, a valid theory requires a lot more than an unsubstantiated proposition for which evidence cannot possibly be provided.

Answer 6

What evidence do we have against the flying spaghetti monster? Or against a pair of giant exploding trousers that started the big bang. You can't just say what proof is there that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence the other way either. No there is not any evidence against God nor is evidence against a huge red invisible monster who is about to eat the world but i don't believe in that either.

Answer 7

most atheists are atheists because of a lack of evidence. there is no evidence that supports the big bang was created by a creator or even needs a creator. If you are going to add the next step then why not keep adding, why not believe in the creator that created the creator of the big bang?

Answer 8

Well, that depends upon what you count as evidence... We don't really have any empirical evidence of the non-presence of a creator, because there can be no absolute empirical evidence on such a vague state.

We do however have evidence contradicting specific creators, and means of creation (including just about all popular ones) as well as logical processes, which aren't technically evidence, but still suggest we're correct (i.e. Occam's Razor).

Answer 9

As far fetched as there being no creator is to the religious, what real evidence do they have?

my point is that theres no evidence from either side thats gives us a yes or no to is there a god/creator.

There is, however, evidence against the teachings and stories of modern religions. but that dosnt mean there is no chance of there being a consious god/creator.

Answer 10

The only evidence against is the law of common sense. The maths tell us that the Big Bang and abiogenesis are possible without devine intervention and the simple common sense rule of the simplest solution usually being the best does the rest.

There is simply no need for devine intervention therefore it seems unlikely that there was any

Answer 11

Simply put, Occam's razor. We have sufficient evidence to point towards a universe which doesn't require a god to come into existence. To add a creator needlessly complicates things. It would be like adding the power of love into theories of gravitation.

We do have a remarkable amount of inconsistency in theist beliefs, however, which also tends to go against them.