Question: Is this true?
A: The most obvious answer is a quite resounding no.
No one can claim there is no evidence in the universe for the existence of a supreme being. Yet, arm chair atheist pseudo-experts and wannabe philosophers say dumb things like that all the time because they never think anything through deeply enough to see how foolish such statement is.
Proof? Ask them to prove there is no evidence for God. Gee - End of discussion right there - if they were honest, but they are not.
What has been said of lawyers easily applies to atheists - its only 99% of atheists that give a bad reputation to the rest.
It is simply not - by any means - a logical or justifiable claim. Why? Well obviously no atheist can possibly offer any evidence for his own claim! He can't offer any justification for such a stupendous claim, therefore he must bare alone the burden of proof that there is no evidence for God. Can he? No, of course not.
The atheist positing such thus puts himself in the exact same position that he claims theists are in! Claiming that which cannot be proved. This is hardly surprising since atheists also vehemently and religiously claim there is no God all while admitting they can't prove a negative!
His position implies that he has indeed searched out and deeply examined all proposed evidences of God and found them all lacking. Of course there are no atheists who can even be aware of all the evidences that may exist for God, nor even of all proposed evidences since this would require a knowledge of every argument for God that has ever existed as well as all possible other evidences. Yet another knowledge claim that atheists cannot uphold.
To truly know there is zero evidence for God's existence implies that the atheist claiming this knows all possible evidences for God's existence. No single human being ever has, nor ever will, be able to do this, thus all such flippant dismissals of all evidence for God are mere arrogant pretensions to unavailable knowledge.
That in itself destroys all claims by any atheists that there is no evidence for God. It also demonstrates what every theist knows - that atheists are almost invariably arrogant blowhards making foolish claims they cannot back up.
Dismissal of all evidence is not an argument against God. It is mere denial of reality that there are indeed infinite evidences for the existence of a first cause. Claiming there's no evidence for God is tantamount to claiming to have proved that all proposed evidences, ever, are wrong. This has never been done by anyone, ever.
Moreover, claiming that any proposed evidence is wrong or insufficient does not prove that it is in fact wrong or insufficient. Worse, even if one were able to truly refute all proposed evidence, that still does not imply that there is no God. There may be other evidences that one is unaware of, the wrong analysis tools and methods may have been used for devising evidence, etc.
Atheist Kai Nielsen stated,
“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.” - Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.The atheist, though he will always deny it, because of personal wishes that there be no God, is always left with nothing to found his own beliefs on. What do we see instead? Nothing but denial and lame attempts at shirking his share of the burden of proof. Atheists always shirk this by mere caviling and, as always, denial that they even have any such burden. But they do have such a burden anyway - shirked or not, admitted or not.
Atheists tend to assume that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one ought to believe that God does not exist. False. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a knowledge claim "There is no God" as theism's "There is a God". Thus, as Ravi Zacharias states,
"the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence".The atheist cannot say, "Well I don't claim there is no God, only that I don't believe there is". But such would lead to agnosticism, not real atheism. If one does not know there is no God, one has no grounds to believe there is no God, no ultimate first cause. Back to burden of proof! Is there evidence that no God exists? No. None whatsoever.
Is there evidence of a first ultimate cause? Yes, everything that exists is evidence of a first and ultimate cause, by implication of the laws of cause and effect! (Quantum theories notwithstanding). To say a singularity started it all, or a quantum fluctuation started it all is to say "we have no idea what started it all"! Fluctuation of what? etc.
Consider the following evidence, for example:
Information is evidence of God. Information itself is metaphysical. Logic is metaphysical. Now, if metaphysical things exist then that itself is yet another evidence for the possibility and probability of the existence of God, who, by very definition, is metaphysical! But atheists claim there is no such thing as a "metaphysical" something. All is matter and energy.
Thus atheism is little different than insanity, for claiming that nothing metaphysical exists is as bad as claiming that information doesn't exist! So where does the atheist get this tasty bit of information?!
We know information is metaphysical because it is always other or different from the medium in which it is stored. The ink on the paper in a book, by itself is not information. It's just a dye. Ink on paper, by the way it's used and structured to form symbols that, in turn, represent specific concepts and meanings, is merely the container, the medium through which information is conveyed. All symbol systems imply metaphysics and intelligence. The collective symbols, by the way they are organized on the paper can contain meaningful information, to a mind that knows the symbolic convention, or code, used.
Again, the pixels on your screen are not the information they contain. They are mere colored light spots. However, the pixels encode information that requires a mind - a mind that has been taught the symbol convention used (say the alphabet or icons) - to interpret it. That information is not random - it isn't a meaningless blotch - but is structured and semantic. It has syntax, semantics (meaning) and purpose. No symbolic convention (code) is without purpose. But the very concept of purpose implies intention which implies mind and volition.
Encoded algorithmic information is a symbol system, whether that symbol system be such as the English or Hebrew alphabets or the ATCG chemicals of DNA. Such symbol systems cannot exist without intelligence (they intrinsically imply intelligent origin) thereby demonstrating that metaphysical intelligence must exist in order to explain the humongous levels of algorithmic information contained in the DNA molecule.
That intelligence - given its complexity, depth and intricacy - is best and most simply (Occam's Razor) explained by what men have always called "God". The Intelligent originator.