Why do you not believe in God?

[KnockEmOuttt]

It ignores the scientific method and substitutes a formula for simply making things up.

Scientific method is a circular argument method, but it's useful and pragmatic, but really the method can only prove things to be wrong, but not true. It can observation fits well with hypothesis, but then later data can show that hypothesis is not true. It's practical and should be used, but it cannot prove God for sure.

Therefore it is inadmissible is evidence. Next caller please!

You still haven't told me what premise you dispute?

I dispute your use of reasoning on both counts. Perhaps your argument against the existence of god not as much, although I find that argument to be a bit weak to say the least. And besides that they are both arguments. Not evidence.

As for your statement on the scientific method (which is still a bit doublespeak but I think I can make out your point), you've explained the very reason why it is the best approach. It allows for us to change our understanding when we get things wrong (and yes, we get things wrong sometimes). More importantly, it provides us with strong, testable, and verifiable evidence. On the same token, religion doesn't change with new information. I'm told to take it at face value, despite its inconsistencies. As for your argument in favor of god, it's just a bunch of clever wordplay. It's not evidence for anything, it's just a way to make it sound like you've got some.