Well theology is the study of God...which already assumes there is a God. But if we look at a building and say, "surely this building was built by human hands." Why? "Because of the fact that buildings don't grow naturally" (except for that of the raw materials used in the process). At least, from what we have observed in biology, chemistry, physics, and all the other sciences. Can we not compare the nature of our own works to that which we see in DNA. DNA doesn't just grow naturally, there is a high probability of it being engineered. Then we would have a comparative study on our hands. We know that humans create stuff. And we are attempting to see if there is another Creator of higher intelligence (not aliens..though they might exist too). I would imagine that the study/science to prove God would look something like this.
Furthermore, carrying on the nature of DNA. If DNA was to grow naturally, what would that look like. How would that affect humanity? Would there be different classes/family of humans. Beyond what we see in race and color. If DNA was to grow naturally, would we not see more variances. I must be the first to admit that I know nothing of genetics, so....I'm just being curious.
There is no such thing as "the science of disproving God". It's no more than a philosophical exercise. Science is not even interested in the question. Science will always be trying to understand and explain natural reality, whether God exists or not. That's what Hawkings was trying to say about "God isn't necessary".
My only interest in God or any other supernatural "explanation" of reality is when it becomes anti-science. Defending science and skepticism and critical thinking should be the over-arching goal, not disproving fairies or Santa Clause or God (except for fun).
I just want more people to be smarter and understand science. I don't even want to tell religious people that they can't join the science club. (Well ok, THEN WE THROW THEM IN THE DUNGEON! But just for fun.)
I get what you're saying - however I don't think that concepts have any existence - they have no basis in the observable world (or any other rational version of "reality"). The concept of God is not God in any sense, just as a picture of an apple is not an apple in any sense.
Poor old Matt Slick tried to use this very argument to prove God in his version of the Transcendental Argument for God.
I could see this particular argument going round in circles for a long time - whether or not concepts actually have existence depends a lot on which definition of existence and reality you choose to adopt.
If your version is right, however, then we have a bit of a slippery slope where St Anselm's ontological proof for God could be valid.
Say btw, if you're sorry about God being a delusion, I'm sorry about Free Will being a delusion. :)
Perhaps that's why the claim that sexual orientation is mostly choice baffles me. (And yeah, I can predict that people will want to point out that I'm writing this of my own free will. Bah! No! Seriously, I just can't help myself!)
God is such a huge concept it's pretty much impossible you would think to disprove it.There are actually physicists like Steven Hawking,Victor Stenger,Steven Weinberg claim we could safely say it's disproved.
I don't think that for an absolute fact there is nothing that could be considered a "god," I just find that the concept of a big, white, male living in the sky that created everything with the snap of his fingers to be very unlikely. I don't know where everything came from, and unlike religious people, I'm not going to pretend I do. I'm just not going to go with the most popular and most ridiculous theory that has absolutely no evidence other than an ancient book that simply says so.