Science is not evidence against the existence of God.

I thank Con for his arguments, though it seems like he still doesn't quite get the points I'm making. I hope readers and voters can follow my logic. Hopefully things will be clearer in this last round.Con says "You cannot fail to make an observation."Observations are made by humans, perception and interpretation play an important role in the act of observing. By definition both perception and interpretation are subjective, and usually that which is subjective can vary from person to person. What this means is that many people can look at the same event or phenomena and perceive it differently. Perception is at the heart of all observation... you can not observe without perceiving. What one perceives is limited in many ways. It is limited by their senses, by their mentality, by their understanding of that which they observe, and by their spatial and temporal location in relation to that observed. These are just a few possible factors limiting one's perception of something. What all of this means is that one can observe something, but fail to perceive it in it's entirety. Furthermore one can interpret an observation incorrectly, even if they happen to observe and percieve it accurately. Ultimately, while one can easily make an observation, their observation can just as easily be incomplete, or incorrectly interpreted.Con says "If you see the sun going across the sky, that can only be wrong if it wasn't the sun."Most humans who have lived on Earth have seen the sun going across the sky, this does not however mean that they all correctly interpreted what it means. As you so kindly pointed out, it was once believe that this meant that the Sun revolved around the planet. This is of course incorrect, but the observation remains the same. Even now our observation of the sun crossing the sky has remained the same... we have a different interpretation for it though. Observation is one thing, but the real business of understanding and explaining begins with interpretation. And interpretation is not only subjective, but the interpretation of something has no bearing on the thing itself. The sun didn't actually revolve around Earth when everybody thought that it did, everybody was wrong and their interpretation didn't change Reality. That is the nature of any interpretation, it can be correct or wrong but it does not alter Reality. Con says "You asked for proof that God doesn't exist"Actually I'm just debating that science is not evidence for God. I have not asked for proof that God doesn't exist. Most atheists know perfectly well that there is no proof that God doesn't exist, on the other hand there is no proof that he does exist either. Since there is no proof that he does exist, they see no reason to believe in him, which is perfectly understandable and logical. Arguing that there is proof that he doesn't exist... is not a claim to make lightly. Being skeptical is one thing... asserting that God does not exist is a whole other ball game. Con says "yet it can't make it past the scientific methods"I feel like a broken record but let me say it again anyway. The scientific method, is essentially a way of examining and interpreting Reality. This does not mean that it determines what exists and what does not exist. Please differentiate between determining what exists... and determining what is believed to exist. They are very, very different. Existence is not synonymous with that which is believed to exist. Something that is not believed to exist, can exist regardless of beliefs to the contrary. A lack of evidence is not evidence.I think your sticking point is in confusing a lack of evidence for evidence in itself. There is arguably a lack of scientific evidence that God exists... this does not however mean that there is evidence that God does not exist. These are two different things. Evidence is always open to interepretation.Another critical point that you do not seem to understand is that "evidence" is always open to interpretation. Always. You can say the Theory of Evolution is evidence against God... while I can just as easily claim that it is evidence for God. You can claim that The Big Bang Theory proves that God didn't create the universe... and I can claim that God is the most logical cause of the Big Bang. You can claim that "cancer in children" is evidence against God, I can claim that "cancer in children" is a a meaningful experience for their immortal souls, and that it teaches the parents and others involved with the children to have compassion and be grateful for their own lives. Ultimately my point is that at this very moment Science has no evidence specifically proving that God does not exist. It proves that some gods probably don't exist by proving, for instance, that Thunder is not the result of a god throwing a tantrum. But that hardly says anything about the concept of God, which is a much bigger concept than the idea of one god being responsible for rain, and another for harvests, and another for war. The idea of God, is one of an Ultimate Reality, a First Cause, a Supreme Being e.t.c. I have read of one phrase which comes closest to describing God as far as I'm concerned... and it says that God is "All-That-Is". Good luck proving that wrong... let alone proving that "All-That-Is" does not exist. All-That-Is"All-That-Is" is arguably a vague and broad conception of God. But you see, anyone who bothers to think it through is perfectly aware that the whole idea of God can not be more than a vague and broad conception. Just like the idea of "life" or "consciousness" or a "soul"... they are words that encompass more than one specific conception, description or idea... ultimately they represent something that is difficult to define, conceive, describe or put into words.There are other words, which come closer to representing something similar in magnitude to the idea of God, words that are also beyond conception, explanation, understanding, and description. Try explaining or describing "infinity" or "reality" or "existence". Better yet... try finding evidence against them? Impossibru!To some of us, God is as self-evident as reality or existence. It is as meaningless to try to disprove Him, as it is to disprove "existence". There is actually more to it than that... but that would be a whole other discussion, and not something I would debate here. Not enough space for that. Anyway... it's been a pleasure Duncan.Cheers.