1.
There is only God and God's will.
Evidence existing outside of that, independent of God's will, would mean that there is something that is not subject to God's will. And that violates a basic tenet of religion.
As such, there is no evidence independent from God that could be used as a basis for a rational argument about God. You cannot debate whether God exists when the premise of all assumptions is that God exists.
2.
Science treats empirical fact as dominant over theory. For religion and magic, it's the other way round. If your experiment says one thing and the book says another thing, then there must be something wrong with your experiment.
3.
Just as religion is philosophically incompatible with the existence of independent evidence, IMO science is incompatible with a concept such as God.
Science deals with repeatable, objective experiments, but God is unique and can change his behavior at will. It is impossible to prove or disprove claims about God with experiments, because God does not meet the philosophical assumptions of the scientific method.
On the other hand... If something cannot be proven/disproven by a witness in any experiment under any circumstances, does that thing even have an attribute such as "existence" or "non-existence"?
= new reply since forum marked as read
