Argument against atheism

[downbeatplumb]

Downbeat: completely irrelevant. My response is to a line of thought that science is not based on assumptions.

No one here is claiming, "and therefore God". God has nothing to do with it; indeed, I included "God" in my non comprehensive list of axioms people must assume to be true in order for the world to function depending on their worldview. "God" is an assumption; it is an axiom one must accept in order for anything else to make sense. Just like the Big Bang. people assume it to be true and then prove everything else based on that assumption and other evidence.

---

But the initial assumption cannot be proven.

I work the other way round.

I look at evidence and research and curent hypothosise that work and go by that.

Lets see what happens if we assume that pixies plant all trees.

Well we know that tree planting pixies exist, trees exist, therefore pixies plant trees, this is proof positive in the existance of tree planting pixies.

This is exactly the kind of bollocks argument that you present for god.

There are lots of theories for what could have led to a big bang.

So far none of them have enough evidence to sway opinion one way or the other because the lack evidence.

As does the god hypothosis, but the god hypothosis has failed in so many of its past predictions that it can be safely discounted.