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.

#48, what I said is perfectly well constructed English:

"[T]here's no flaw in reasoning to demand proof of something that should be emitting proof at the rate of furlongs per fortnight[.]"

It is perfectly rational to demand proof of something that can only produce lots and lots of proof in the first place.  When I ask you to produce evidence of your marriage, you can produce a lot of proof of that since a MARRIAGE is a thing that generates a lot of proof by its very nature.

Similarly, a god-thing that not only creates the universe, but allegedly messes around in it often, is something that we can only expect would produce a lot of proof of its existence.  The religitards made the mistake of asserting that miracles were conducted, therefore we should expect inexplicable physical events to occur as evidence of this god-thing.  However, once the age of reason arrived, then the industrial age, then the information age, all this god-activity not only disappeared, but left no traces at all.  That's sort of strange, isn't it?  Occam's Razor only tells us that instead of accepting the existence of a being that escapes detection in this fashion, it makes much more sense to establish that this being never existed in the first place.  After all, Humans are drug-addled liars who simply can't be trusted ... hence the sensible man's insistence upon EVIDENCE.

So, let's see that 900ft-tall Jesus, guys.  Let's also see that huge walking man WITHOUT the aid of whatever drugs you religitards were on, at the time.  Evidence and logic are the "bullshit cutters", to be sure.