No evidence for the theory that Vulcan exists, therefore it doesnt exist.

No evidence that the big bang exists, and yet, we say it exists.

What is the difference between these two things?

One is reductive, the other is expansive. One requires us to expand our understanding, requiring more thought.

The other requires that we constrain our understanding and our thinking.

"The universe isn't really infinite, honest, trust me I'm a professional physicist (Or even professional priest), don't waste your time and energy thinking any more about an infinite universe, we have it all worked out", comes to mind.

Constraining our thinking, is what is encouraged in a restricted energy scenario, the scenario where all energy is extracted from the planet, and rationed, given out metered, in return for every bit of effort, and thinking we do.

But in an unlimited, unrestricted energy scenario, we are no longer constrained to thinking only about things that might be worth another little bit of scarce energy.

When that happens, maybe finally we will admit there are some questions about the big bang which have no answers, therefore invalidating the theory completely.

The simplest one is where did it all start.

The reason it might be unanswerable, is that there is no start, there never was, its always been this way, since it was somehow created, and its stranger than we can know, because not only is what we can see and measure expanding, but everything we can't see is as well, all atoms, all electrons, whcih might explain why everything appears attracted to everything else, we call it a force, gravity, but actually it could be just an effect of all things expanding towards one another, the things we don't see expanding towards one another have to be all accellerating outwards, away from one another, in all directions, which feels like an impossibility. But we can trust the universe is stranger than we can know, so nothing is impossible.