God is a CONCEPT

    It is impossible to prove or disprove god because god neither exists nor fails to exist.  It's like trying to prove the number e exists: chances are that you've never actually seen e in real life, you've only read about it in books.  Of course, it would be silly to say that the existence of e is therefore infinitely improbable, since  e doesn't go about existing or not existing anyway.
    This is where /sci/ seems to be stuck, trying to prove/disprove the general concept of god.  For the arguments to progress, you need to understand the relationship between god and religion.  Religion tends to consist of three components: God(s), miracles, and practices.  Miracles are what the religion claims to be god's manifestation on Earth: these range between things that happened naturally(ie the existence of the universe, people recovering from illness on their own) and magical stories of things that never really happened(ie Moses parting the Red Sea, God creating the world in a week.)  Practices are the component of religion that says things like: love thy neighbor, thou shalt not murder, slay the infidels (often openly conflicting with itself.)  Religion ties the three together using miracles to "prove" that their god "exists" and wants them to follow their religion's practices.  The miracle->god->practice chain is normally non sequitur and is facilitated by a magic book (ie bible, qur'an) and/or a class of priests/prophets who are free to (mis)interpret the religion for the common people.
    Religion is afraid of science because science can disprove the "miracles" with which religion "proves" its god is correct.  However, neither science nor religion can prove/disprove a concept.

#32 said: «You mean that we have never yet found convincing proof.»

No, it means that a giant alien space monster with vast interest in Mankind would not be hard to find.  After searching for the fucking Easter Bunny steadily each Easter, you eventually have to grudgingly conclude that it's far more probable that a large and anthropomorphic rabbit with a strange interest in your kids DOESN'T EXIST.  If he DID exist, boy O boy, you'd see him one year, all right.  (I'm not talking about the queers who don bunny suits and try to feel up your kids.)

This "god" should be easy to prove, given "his" alleged frequent contact with Mankind.  Alas, when the cameras and recorders arrive, there's just blank film and silence.  Hence:  You people were just making things up.  That makes perfect sense, since the bookstores are filled with the fictional works of Mankind.

Even shorter:  HUMANS LIE A LOT.  Get over it.

I don't even need to get into the issue of "if YOU know this 'god' exists, then there MUST be a method by which 'he' is detected".  That pops your little argument like a SABO round does a child's balloon.

#32 said: «Back in the first millennium we hadn't "found" any convincing proof that the world is spherical.»

False.  There was plenty of convincing proof, like use of shadows on the ground, the Earth's shadow on the moon, and of course that silly little problem of watching ships sink under the horizon as they left.

Since people (like you) are largely fools and fearful shit-chimps, such evidence was largely ignored and the general populace sporting such simian mentalities continued to believe the world was flat, while they killed other chimps and mounted their own sisters.  (Rome, etc.)

YOU SEE, here, #32 buddy, is that you are standing there like a fucking moron, holding NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, when evidence is absolutely required and that it should be easy to get.  But you have none.  Well, the sensible man says "fella, you've got nuthin'" and walks away, shaking his head sadly that such a fool readily exists.

(Where do you queers get your so-called educations from, anyway?  The trivia that's printed on boxes of breakfast cereal?  Sheesh.)