This thread really makes no sense and it is just Paragon shifting goal posts.
First, Art has the burden of disproving god's existence. I disprove this.
Second, without conceding the first, there are scientific arguments for god's existence to support the first point. Sigma, Davedan, and Art disprove this while I hurr about in the background. Paragon tries a few more arguments, shifting from belief in god affirms gods existence, to a god gene, to the multiverse.
Third, now we are arguing what the true mark of scientific demarcation is. Chew has taken the, very reasonable, position of Popperian falsifiability. Paragon is arguing a mere speculation of a multiverse.
Fourth, at some point he channeled Donald Rumsfeld arguing that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. That there are known knowns and that there are known unknowns. But there are also unknown unknowns; things we don't know that we don't know.
In sum, can we just conclusively determine that there is no factual or logical support for god, and that the existence of god is innately irrational for this reason. It's really not that different a position than devout theists Kierkegaard or Kant.