Science is not evidence against the existence of God.

I thank Con for his arguments. I do however feel like he has completely missed my point. Fortunately I think his arguments may be helpful in making my point clear. Con says "If you see something in the world, that is an observation." What Con says is indeed true... but one's observations aren't always true, correct, or accurate. Observation once suggested that the Earth was flat, and science believed it... that was an observation that perfectly illustrates why observation does not always match Reality. It's not just about observing, but about seeing the bigger picture and seeing things from the right angle. There are also thingswhich simply can not be observed in the first place. Reality does not conform to observations, explanations, or science. Con should be careful not to overlook this critical point. Con says "If you have an explanation for something, that's a hypothesis." Whether it is a hypothesis, theory, or law... they are all ultimately explanations. First let me once again say that Reality does not conform to explanations... explanations are supposed to match or describe Reality. If an explanation does not match or describe Reality accurately then it is wrong. It doesn't matter who came up with it or how they did so. It doesn't matter how long it has been accepted or considered true. It doesn't matter how much observation and experimentation has supposedly proved it. Reality is not dependent on explanations. Explanation are dependent on Reality. To put it another way... Reality is the Territory and science is the Map. First of all the Map can never completely represent every aspect of the Territory. Secondly an accurate Map depends upon an accurate perception and interpretation of the Territory. It is never ever the other way around. One should never forget that a Map is a representation of Territory. A map is not only a representation of Territory but is by necessity based upon Territory. Finally a map is an explanation of a Territory, an explanation that allows one to understand and move through the Territory. Reality is the Territory, and science is the Map. Science(the map) must always conform to Reality. Reality(the territory) never ever conforms to Science(the map). Con says "Science itself refutes the existence of God as something that cannot make it past testing has no hold in the scientific community." I have explained above why Science does not determine Reality. Science has absolutely no bearing on what does or does not exist. A map has no bearing on what does or doesn't exist in a in the Territory it describes. A map can of course decide what “supposedly” exists or doesn't exist but if it doesn't match the Territory then the map is wrong. By the same token Science explains Reality by observing, hypothesizing, experimenting e.t.c but none of this alters reality. Even after going through the rigorous scientific method, something accepted as a theory or law can turn out to be wrong. This is evidence that Science does not determine Reality. If science did determine Reality why would it ever be wrong? With that in mind, what science can or can not test is completely and utterly irrelevant when it comes to existence. What science can test may determine what can be proved to exist or not exist, but what actually exists doesn't need to be testable in order to exist. Testability is not a criteria for existence. Our inability to test any given things or phenomena does not make it non-existent. There are countless things in the universe which science will be able to test... we couldn't possibly test everything in the universe. Does that mean that all those things don't exist? Is any part of the universe that we can not or have not tested non-existent? That would be a ridiculous and baseless assertion. Now one can always argue that something that can not be tested does not exist... nobody is denying that. But don't think that Reality is going to bend itself to match your arguments. Just like Reality isn't going to bend itself to match what science expects of it. My point is simple, Explanation and Reality are two different thing. Knowledge and Reality are two different things. Science and Reality are two different things. Reality does not answer to, depend upon, or conform to science. Con says “Until you can actually follow the scientific method, don't lecture me on what's real or not.” What is real is not dependent on whether you or I can “actually follow the scientific method”. What is real is not dependent on the scientific method in the first place. What is real will stay real whether or not the scientific method proves it to be real. To put it simply: Science(and the scientific method) do not deterine Reality. Con says “If God did exist, we would have noticed by now.” Whether or not God exists does not depend on whether or not we notice Him. Just because we still haven't seen or noticed some star at some remote edge of the universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Our notice has no bearing on existence... though it can change existence haha. It does not however determine what does or does not exist. Anyway, my apologies for taking so long to reply. I look forward to your arguments, and I hope I have finally made myself clear.