In general, I would maintain that the request that religion prove a scientific claim wrong is nothing more than verbal obfuscation – when talking about religion and science we are really talking about two different things and to confuse them in this way isn't helpful for anyone.

On the other hand, a careful thinker might also conclude that there hasn't really been a case of science proving a religious claim wrong. Most of the supposed examples of this that come readily to mind date from the period of transition when scientific thought, in the modern sense, was being developed and was starting to take hold. Before this transition, there really wasn't much of a clear distinction between an empirical, scientific claim and a religious, spiritual claim. As this distinction was developed and as scientific thought progressed, there was a lot of give-and-take, so to speak, between the new way of thinking, which made the distinction, and the old, which did not. The claim, for instance, that the earth is the center of the universe, verses the claim that it rotates around the sun, is not actually a religious claim. The fact that the newer view proved to be more satisfactory than the older view really does not mean that "religious claims" were "disproved" by science.

Now that we have a pretty good understanding of the distinction between the two, we should not have to engage in this argument over and over again.

In general, I would maintain that the request that religion prove a scientific claim wrong is nothing more than verbal obfuscation – when talking about religion and science we are really talking about two different things and to confuse them in this way isn't helpful for anyone.

On the other hand, a careful thinker might also conclude that there hasn't really been a case of science proving a religious claim wrong. Most of the supposed examples of this that come readily to mind date from the period of transition when scientific thought, in the modern sense, was being developed and was starting to take hold. Before this transition, there really wasn't much of a clear distinction between an empirical, scientific claim and a religious, spiritual claim. As this distinction was developed and as scientific thought progressed, there was a lot of give-and-take, so to speak, between the new way of thinking, which made the distinction, and the old, which did not. The claim, for instance, that the earth is the center of the universe, verses the claim that it rotates around the sun, is not actually a religious claim. The fact that the newer view proved to be more satisfactory than the older view really does not mean that "religious claims" were "disproved" by science.

Now that we have a pretty good understanding of the distinction between the two, we should not have to engage in this argument over and over again.

Are you familiar with Quine's web of belief? That is sort of at the center of cognitive dissonance. Have you ever taken a philosophy of science course? I would very much recommend it, not just to you, but to anyone interested in how science works. But take it from a secular school to avoid any bias.

Are you familiar with Quine's web of belief? That is sort of at the center of cognitive dissonance. Have you ever taken a philosophy of science course? I would very much recommend it, not just to you, but to anyone interested in how science works. But take it from a secular school to avoid any bias.

The evidence for me is really strange actually. I have had a few experiences with what I am quite comfortable, culturally, socially, developmentally, traditionally, etc., calling God – or at least the God I have grown up understanding. I have lost faith a few times and came back to it a few times. I know enough psychology and sociology to say that the experiences were salient and visceral enough that a differential diagnosis that these were delusions does not really make a lot of sense to me.

Because I know of others who have had similar experiences it came to "make sense". All this after I had basically said "screw you" to the church and to Christians ironically following my four years at seminary. Moreover, it was my concerted effort to understand my own beliefs in conversation with atheists that lead me to the conclusions that my experiences were not that of a needy or momentarily lapsed person. Athiesm helped be believe again.

The evidence for me is really strange actually. I have had a few experiences with what I am quite comfortable, culturally, socially, developmentally, traditionally, etc., calling God – or at least the God I have grown up understanding. I have lost faith a few times and came back to it a few times. I know enough psychology and sociology to say that the experiences were salient and visceral enough that a differential diagnosis that these were delusions does not really make a lot of sense to me.

Because I know of others who have had similar experiences it came to "make sense". All this after I had basically said "screw you" to the church and to Christians ironically following my four years at seminary. Moreover, it was my concerted effort to understand my own beliefs in conversation with atheists that lead me to the conclusions that my experiences were not that of a needy or momentarily lapsed person. Athiesm helped be believe again.

"The problem is that this has taken the form of “my knowledge is better than yours” as atheists and Christians continue to do no more than whip out their respective phalluses and compare size! "

Hehe…I have issues with that as well. I really think that is just human nature, to pick a philosophy and defend it, even when it ceases to be useful. If you have any inkling towards psychology, I would very much recommend a book called, "Mistakes were made, but not by me" about cognitive dissonance. It goes a long way in explaining that particular human behaviour.
I am curious about the evidence for the existence of God that you find satisfactory. Have I missed something or does that evidence not meet my guidelines for satisfactory evidence?