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.

Then leave your giant-alien-space-monster at the door when the adults are talking, #37.  If you feel you don't need to supply proof of your assertions, then your assertions will be summarily dismissed by rational men.  Your assertions have no place in schooling, legislation or law enforcement.  In fact, any place where people are inclined to talk about the topic of Harry Potter (and other such imaginary constructs) is a good guide for places where your assertions have their ONLY applicability.  Note well we don't quote from the "Books of Rowling" when justifying legislation, family arrangements, and in fact any matter of legal and community importance.

But that's not what the "holy rollers" do, is it?  They want to have their cake (i.e. belief in an imaginary being) and also eat it too (i.e. have others forced to abide by the dictates of this imaginary being).

It's time to remove the use of the Bible in courtrooms across the USA.  If the religitards continue to insist they don't need proof to believe in the existence of a giant alien space monster and the imaginary pronouncements it allegedly has, then their methods should be removed from the legal apparatus.  Or, we should just admit that "I so swear to Dumbledore" is an equally valid affirmation in court.

Sheesh.  Imagine if we lived in a world where engineers didn't use the demonstrable and repeatable principles of physics to build bridges, and instead claimed that some passage out of Romans assured us the bridge as built would not collapse under a working load.