Can science prove or disprove the existence of God? Can we prove anything without defining what we want to prove? If I can define God, then am I not probably defining a God of my own invention and am I not therefore guilty of idolatry? If I can't define God, then do I even know what I'm talking about?

I shall, for the purpose of this opinion, accept the quaintly vaporous quasi-definition that God is the Uncreated Creator of all that exists.
Since everything that exists was created, and God is uncreated, God does not exist.
But since a nonexistent entity can't create anything, God does not nonexist.
To not nonexist is to exist, and to not exist is to nonexist.
Therefore God neither exists nor nonexists but both exists and nonexists.
This proves, using that wondrous mystic non-sequitur chicken dance logic favored by theologians of all ages, that God used a Swiss Army Knife to create the world.

Look at a Swiss Army Knife. What do you see? Chaos! A chaotic assemblage of blades, implements, and gadgets, none of which is quite right for the task at hand, but maybe it'll get the job done somehow. Hey, McGuyver sure looked like he was having lotsa fun!

Look at nature. What do you see? Chaos! A chaotic community of plants, animals, and inscrutable life forms, all trying to eat each other and avoid getting eaten, all trying to crowd each other out and avoid getting crowded out, all trying to reproduce their kind but procreating offspring that are disturbingly not quite like their parents. Evolution has taken such chaotic twists and turns that we'll never be sure who evolved from whom.

Look at the universe. What do you see? Chaos! A chaotic infinity of stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, meteors, comets,and goodness knows what all in a vast profusion that defies human comprehension. Astronomers think they have now resolved the incompatibility between the apparent age of the universe and the ages of individual stars, but just don't you worry. Next month they will discover something new that blows all their theories to bits.

Look at the atom. What do you see? Chaos! A chaotic mishmash of trons and quarks all trying to find their energy levels, never sure what they're up to nor whether they can all exist at the same time. There's this frustrated dude named Dr. Werner Heisenberg who threw up his hands and dreamed up some idea he called the Uncertainty Principle, which is a high-falutin way of saying Chaos Rules!

Look at science itself. What do you see? Chaos! Hundreds of scientific journals are publishing a chaotic wealth of new discoveries contradicting each other and letters to the editor contradicting all the discoveries. Today's rich body of scientific knowledge makes everything we knew last year seem quaintly naive. Next year's discoveries will probably blow our minds.

I get my jollies out of these forlorn apologists for an orderly world designed by an intelligent creator. They keep ranting about how such a wonderful universe couldn't have been created chaotically, and are forever coming up with these tired old comparisons like a brand-new Cadillac resulting from a stick of dynamite in a junkyard or the complete works of Shakespeare resulting from a monkey huntin-pecking on a typewriter. Well folks, wonderful though Cadillacs and Shakespeare may be, they aren't all that's in the world, and dynamite in junkyards and monkeys with typewriters aren't all that ever happened. Our own intellect is such a very small part of the Universal Intelligence that any pretense that we can ever understand much of anything is inexcusably arrogant.

Several visitors to my site have gotten the impression that I think of science as my God. Well, I guess they're entitled to their opinion. I don't pretend to "believe in" science. I simply perceive that "science" in its broadest sense consists of all possible ways of knowing anything. The methods of knowing that are not yet embraced by science are the methods that have not yet been proven reliable. That doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means we haven't yet proven they're right.

There's a difference between law and science. In law, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In science, a theory is presumed false until the evidence in its favor is overwhelming. A method is presumed invalid until the results of that method are overwhelmingly productive of new knowledge. The methods of investigation used by theologians, psychics, paranormal investigators, etc. may quite realistically be perfectly valid. Science presumes them to be invalid, not because they have been proven invalid, but because they have not yet been proven valid. This is what makes science so powerful and so dynamic. If you can prove that your theology or your parapsychology or your witchcraft or whatever is genuinely valid, science will eventually accept it.

Sorry to disappoint you, folks, but science is not God. Science did not create the universe. Science is our way of finding out about our wonderful universe. Science is limited to what can be known by rational thought backed up by verifiable observations. If you can verify your observation and can prove the validity of your rationale, science will accept it.