>>29
Perhaps you should employ step 1 of scientific method, since I do not see any of my arguments examined in your reply.
>>30
Scientific method didn't spring out of the ground, it was drawn from metaphysical concepts. Also technically metaphysics is not a science, the science of metaphysics would be psychology and cognitive science, maybe functionalism.
Anyway, maybe I should be more direct with the point I'm making... I am sure as an ordinary flawed human being you mix up science with a set of unrelated experiences and feelings associated with it just as people mix up the abstract philosophical concepts which define their god with idols and myths and so forth. I could criticise you all day on your errors, preconceptions and intellectual shortcuts but none of it will ever shake your belief in the validity of science, this is what's happening when you inform theists of their superstitions and contradictions, telling a theist there is no proof of god is like me instructing you to kill yourself since science cannot solve the hard problem of consciousness and thus you are a philosophical zombie.
The only problem I see with the trademark argument is the definition of "god". It certainly doesn't prove these is an old guy in sandals and a toga sitting in the clouds zapping people with lightning, but it does prove the validity of certain abstract philosophical concepts in the same way metaphysics proves the validity of scientific method.
As I said read Descartes and Kant or I will be intellectually flooring you over and over.