How to argue against this claim

[Brian37]

On the other hand, I've never heard an atheist give a natural argument that disproved the existence of God.

See if you can spot the pattern.

"On the other hand, I have never heard an atheist give a natural argument that disproved the existence of Allah"

"On the other hand, I have never heard an atheist give a natural argument that disproved the existence of Vishnu"

"On the other hand, I have never heard an atheist give a natural argument that disproved the existence of Yahweh"

They can all be true statements by default can they?

Let me clean this bad logic up for you.

Which makes more sense to you? Humans make up gods? Or there really is a real god? You know other people make up gods, you simply refuse to aim that same logic at your own claim.

Stephen Hawkins "A God is not required". On top of the absurd notion that thinking can happen without a biological structure.

---

You do realize that most of the atheists here started off as Christians, right? And something "science cannot explain" isn't god by default, ever heard of "god-of-the-gaps"?

Yeah. Isn't kind of like "science of the gaps"--"I don't know how the cosmos came about, but we'll discover that some day." Or "You think that you experience God, but you really don't. You're just crazy or lying because that's impossible." Or "The cancer didn't really just go away. It was just a physical abnormality or the person is lying because it's impossible."

Now you are just plain mimicking our rightful arguments because you have no case.

Whatever science has yet to answer A GOD IS NOT REQUIRED. Just like you do not need Thor to explain lightening, or Poseidon to explain why hurricanes happen.