''There is no physical evidence to support God, therefore I don't believe in God.'' This is the methodology that you probably subscribe to, with pride and confidence.

However, the drawback of this methodology is the ''physical evidence'' part. You demand evidence that can be seen, tested and not misunderstood. Which, incidentally, is not possessed by a ton of stuff that folks undoubtedly view as real things.

For example: Caesar. The oldest documents that ever said anything about him existed 900 years after his supposed death; and there ever were only 10 copies. It would be circular reasoning to say that these documents were real because their authors were trustworthy; and that the authors were trustworthy because the documents were real. What's more, it's common for ancient people to make up historical figures. And most importantly, nobody has ever seen Caesar. Therefore, shouldn't we throw Caesar into the pit of non-belief?

Another example: dark matter. Scientists realized that the math didn't work out. They discovered a direct violation of the laws of physics. However, instead of admitting that they don't know what's going on, scientists threw out the concept of some kind of ''invisible magic mass'' (which is not a straw man because I'm merely stating the obvious) to compensate for it. Why is it invisible? Because it doesn't interact with light. Why is it magic? Because it's makin' galaxies, for goodness' sake. Has anyone detected it? No, but someone definitely will. Think for yourselves...is it sounding familiar?

Back to the point. The drawback of your methodology is that it will never, ever potentially result in the falsification of atheism. For example: even If God healed amputees, you'd throw in aliens or hidden tech as ''more believable'' explanations. As David Wood put it, ''that doesn't sound like science to me''.