Then we have a good discussion ahead of us, Tony, because the Scientific Realm is indeed quite larger than the Scientific Reach.
Your bravado of "arguments proving" is already not very scientific. Science does not work with arguments; it works with facts and then it theorizes about the larger realities involving those facts.
The Big Bang is a specific model scientists use about the materialization process, and I am happy to say that more and more scientists are no longer satisfied with that model. It has too many parts that, scientifically, are not logical enough. There are question marks for which no satisfying answers are provided.
But notice, too, that in the Big Bang model there is an assumption built in that does not get mentioned much by scientists: The prior reality.
While all scientists fully subscribe to the idea that this material outcome is a result, a large number goes mute when discussing the prior state. About thirty years ago, most scientists gave up on the idea that all came from nothing. I mainly see this repeated in the amateur scene, like on Quora or on Medium. A good scientist stays mute or leaves this to the specialists. No one of scientific stature says that all came from nothing anymore.
A few scientists have specialized themselves in the prior state of the universe, and the favorite explanation is one in which a quantum fluctuation occurred in the prior state, leading to the resulting outcome. I am not a fan of it, but I am mentioning it so you and I can know that a prior reality is discussed indeed by scientists.
As such, we have a reality that is accepted as being there, and a reality that most of these specialist scientists claim cannot be known (I disagree, but that is for later if you are interested in hearing it). In other words, best guesses are proffered.
Note therefore that scientists do not deny the existence of God.
What they are denying is that God is a scientific word.
And I fully agree with them. God is not a word that exists in the scientific dictionary; it belongs to the religious dictionary.
So, a good scientist will never use the word God. Whether religious or not, no scientist utters that word in a scientific setting. It would be the same as saying that water is male and the moon is female. No scientist would even consider that appropriate scientific language.
And that brings us to you because you are smirking up dictionaries as if they are all one and the same dictionary. You are playing with concepts, but you are not honoring the boundaries of these concepts well.
To say that one can prove that God does not exist is:
A/ Never a scientific endeavor, and
B/ Cannot be fulfilled because denying something that one has to buy into first is an illogical position. It is like not-buying a lottery ticket because one cannot win the lottery. It is illogical to say that. When not buying a ticket, one cannot win the lottery: correct. When buying a ticket, one cannot win the lottery: incorrect.
I can tell that you are a smart and good person, Tony, so I am not undermining you all too much.
What I can say is that when people adhere to concepts that they can end up losing touch with the ground. The battle you are engaged in takes place in the air, and you do not have your feet on the ground. You are invested, engaged, and you may not see your feet left the ground.
My suggestion is to first recognize that the religious realm is different from the scientific realm.
I have described them as follows before:
If religion is a house, then the house is in tip-top shape from the outside. But don't ask to come in and sincerely investigate the foundation -- you may not live to regret it.
In the same mindset, Science is a house as well, and we are immediately invited in to check the foundation. It is fantastic indeed. But step away from the house and look at it: the roof is unfinished. The scientific house is not finished. Look once more and you can see a roof completely built as an extra structure right next to the house. It looks pretty good, too. But try to lift it in place, and many scientists will come screaming, turning off the crane you brought: you are not allowed to lift the roof off the scientific floor and put it on the scientific house. Not allowed.
Einstein was the smart person: He did not lift the roof, but he described the roof and therefore lifted the description of the roof onto the house. Applause all around.
But next, and to the objection of Einstein, others ended up using his description not as the roof, but rather as the foundation of science. So, today, we have a scientific model that is inverted. The fitting theory has become the fact, and from that 'fact' new theoretical models have been established.
The Big Bang model is one of those models. It contains a number of flaws and I'd gladly go over them with you, but let's concentrate on the idea that you can prove that God cannot exist.
Your turn.
