Atheism vs. God's Existence

[SteveII]

The question of the existence of God cannot be commented on by science--not at all.

If you say so...but I;d caution against removing a solid line of confirmation for ones beliefs....particularly if were going to refer to....

metaphysical questions and reasons and arguments for and against the proposition are necessarily metaphysical in nature.

-all of which are well documented failures.  

So, now..what do we have left?  A free floating belief with no known method of confirmation?  If only christers would accept such a thing......

I was not clear. In the context of the discussion of positivism, science cannot have an opinion as to the question "does God exists". Science cannot prove or disprove God. God is not the subject of empirical verification. 

Evidence from science can be used to support, deny, or undercut premises about the nature of reality and a possible intersection between the natural and the supernatural. 

I keep hearing that the natural theology arguments are well documented failures. Just because a group of self-congratulatory atheist say it over and over on a forum does not make it so.  Since they are logically valid (the conclusions follow from the premises), you don't think believing the premises are true is warranted. However, when asked for defeaters, most are versions of 'we don't know'. When finally pushed, the more intelligent among you concludes something like 'it does't prove God exists...it just makes those who already believe feel better about their belief.' So...how is this predictable chain of events 'a well documented failure' for a probabilistic argument? 

Confirmation comes from natural theology, direct revelation, and personal experience.