The problem with creationism versus evolutionism.

Normally, we understand the burden of truth to blow absurd claims out of the water. So we are presented with the argument for a god. At first glance it's easy. No evidence = it's an absurd claim so it's logical to be an atheist.

But now, we do the same thing to an atheist. "How do you think we got here?" They may respond with the Big Bang, or some massive and greatly misunderstood physical phenomena. So we ask them, where is the evidence that a Big Bang or some crazy physical phenomenon occurred? They may attempt to respond that the galaxies are expanding out of each other. We could accept this as evidence and move on. So we ask them how the big bang happened, and they respond with some micro particle generated by a parent universe as a result of matter and antimatter colliding blew up when it travelled across the fourth dimension or some shit like that equally as absurd. And essentially, the atheist cannot satisfy his own burden of proof that this universe in any way came from some bizarre thing.

So, we lack evidence for the genesis of God, and we lack evidence for the genesis of a Big Bang. So do we conclude that we didn't come from anything? To say that matter always existed is absurd when we have the knowledge that it can be created and destroyed into and from subatomic energy. Can we at least assume subatomic energy always existed? The problem is that there is no reason to believe that the laws of physics should hold any constancy, nor should every physical phenomena be 100% identical to the many duplicates of it. We can't logically prove the law of cause and effect, as far as I'm aware, it's merely observed. This level of organization begs a beginning to its design. But it is impossible to determine whether or not it was an intelligence that designed them, or if it is a constancy subject to laws of chaos. Or can it not be both, particularly in reverse order?

One last thought. There is a part of us that is indisputably not physical. It is called the consciousness, or the mind, or the identity of one. Why are you physically you and not physically someone else? Is it senseless to think Bob could physically be Alex? For Bob to have all of the same life experiences, do all of the same things, to be 100% identical, he is just physically Alex instead of Bob? Perhaps Alex could physically be Bob instead of Alex? Is this absurd? No, its not, it's a perfectly rational thought. Why are you you? There is some distinct feature of you that is entirely non-physical. In fact, it may not even be spiritual. It may be something closer to a principle. But regardless, your innate consciousness exists and you have a unique existence. Did all of the atoms that make you up wait for an eternity to have a unique existence, and then come together to have it just to never have it again when you retire to the grave? It's absurd to think this when every cell in your body is replaced every seven years. So yes, even atheists have to answer to themselves regarding an afterlife. What happens to the consciousness? It doesn't go away, to say it won't exist is to say it it will experience darkness and quiet. So now we have another dichotomy to discuss. Reincarnation versus Ascencion/Resurrection. Do we restart as inherently the same person, just in a better place? Or do we live life as some other mortal thing? It's hard to argue one of these things wont happen.

It's not absurd to believe in God. It's not absurd to believe in bizarre scientific paranormalities. And an afterlife is certain based on the evidence of living we have already.