Why do people think that just because you can explain HOW God does something it means he doesn't exist?

kekekeke~ Good question! I'm a scientist myself, but no matter how far science advances I will always believe, because science can never explain reincarnation which I know for a fact to be true.

I have to laugh. My children and I discuss this all the time. My 10 year old loves the science chan. We are always saying: Well, they are coming closer to knowing how God created us. They are trying to explain God. People are foolish not to open their eyes to God's creation.

To explain this I have come up with a simple statement that should clear up your confusion. In a court of law the plaintiff must have evidence proving the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For me to believe the defendant is innocent regardless of any evidence would fly in the face of logic and rule of law.

The higgs boson doesn't disprove god. It would go a very long way in explaining why we don't need god for creation. However proving that we don't need him, is not the same as saying this proves he doesn't exist. Anyone secure in their belief of god shouldn't be threatened or view it as an attack, it's not. It's simply an alternative explanation for why we are here and not much else. Also if You believe God created the rules the universe lives by then obviously the rules prove he exists to you. It's subjective use of objective information.

Lastly, the absence of evidence is not evidence, Occam's Razor holds that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. However, theories must have at least some evidence or a testable hypothesis to be taken seriously.

I could say that the babylonians were the first civilization, based on an old history book. Now due to further research, we know that claim is not accurate. For me to state otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not only incorrect, but intentionally misleading and an example of blind faith in one's theories. Which some scientists are very guilty of as well.

If they find a particle that everything stems from that does not mean God isn't the one that created that particle.I am going to believe till my last breath that God made everything,whether He did it from one particle I do not know.

The Name 'God particle' has to do with the fact, that it would be the one particle that gives mass to all matter and is present in all things in the universe. Hence it would indicate, that all matter stems from a single source.

That's not exactly something that speaks against the existence of God, or is it?

(another thing; they have found a particle that might fit the description. It's not certain.)

We grew from the bacteria...

source:
alien advise

This is why I don't think God exists:

What is God? We can list the attributes of God: omniscience, omnipitence etc. We can we describe his role: Creator etc but no-one can really say what God really is. For instance if I say that Dave is fast, loyal, powerful and his job is to keep us safe have I told you what Dave is? No; there are many things that Dave could possibly be.

So no-one can reasonably claim belief in God because no-one actually knows what God is to know if they believe in it or not. This is an extention of Meno's paradox: How do you recognise something when you don't know what it is?

By extention saying "I see evidence for God everywhere" is a meaningless statement unless you can actually define God seperate from his attributes and role. Believers therefore have faith not only in God but also faith in that what they have labled as God actually is God; it's entirely possible that the object of their devotion is something other than God and they would have no way of knowing.

So the theistic argument is stuck at the definition before it even gets onto arguments for the existance of God. Literally "God exists" has no semantic content; it means nothing because no-one can tell me what God is therefore to state its existance is meaningless.

Everything that exists has a definition which allows humans to communicate what the object is and which defines a shared experience of the existance of something. If there's no definition then clearly there is no shared experience; even theists do not know what they mean when they say God. There are 3000 religions on earth and hundreds of thousands of denominations of those religions; there's thirty thousand denominations of Christianity alone; clearly not all theists are experiencing the same thing when they say "God". Which suggests that there is no universal thing called God; it's just a product of human culture.

In that context asking how God does something is also meaningless because we haven't established what God is so we can't even begin to talk about its existance and until its existance has been established asking how it does something is asinine.

Atheists.