Argument against atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

So I think you are right that science cannot disprove God. Philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality cannot be rejected based on proof. But we can apply Occam's razor and infer probability. I believe reality is a set of simple rules applied to matter. God seems way too complicated.

Honestly depends on the "god" being invoked. If it's any god of any pantheon man has ever invented and then worshipped, then yes, science and evidence can definitely rule yay or nay. If it's a god designed specifically to suit an argument then maybe not. Course, people always want to hold onto something about the god they believe in as they work the god of their arguments. If you let them go on long enough you'll always find a claim to the material, the physical, the observable, and there you can then apply science and evidence. Those people at the core of these stories, all of the believers whose thoughts and opinions formed what would later be stratified into major religions felt that their god was very much in the material world. Interacting constantly, walking alongside them, present at a mountain etc. The current "god is beyond our world" shit is just a retreat from claims that even the most devout seem to wish had never been made.

To simplify

God did this, and this, and this, and this-
No, none of that happened, all evidence we have says nay, and there is no supporting evidence to be found anywhere.
Well, that doesn't disprove god!-
No, but it does provide demonstrable evidence that whatever nebulous god may be floating about undetected, it isn't the one that you just described, which is quite plainly a fantasy.

Now, how many gods do you imagine would be left after disqualifying those stories about gods which are in complete contradiction with evidence we do have, and have no evidence in support of their existence? Science isn't about "proving" anything, but it does give us answers to questions that we have every reason to leverage without tons of qualifiers just so that we can say that we're being "technically accurate with regards to philosophy". Evidence says the creation narrative in the bible is garbage. I'm not going to say....."The creator god described in the bible did not create us, as described, and therefor does not exist as described, though I cannot argue against the notion of a nebulous god with no quantifiable attributes or actions, and technically cannot prove anything at all about anything"....No, just fucking no. "Sorry buddy, your god is demonstrable bullshit." Any argument about god that relies solely on philosophy will always devolve into the tired ass "you cannot truly prove anything" line. Which is hilarious, because it always starts out as an attempt to prove god. When the believer finds that they cannot, they set fire to the fields as they retreat. Well, congratulations, an argument can tell us whether or not we are capable of inventing a god in our minds that would not seem to be illogical. Without any supporting evidence that god is stuck in our minds as a viable concept, but nowhere else. Who gives a fuck what we can imagine? Is what we've imagined real?