OK, sure, let's do it.
It is conceptually impossible for science to be able to say anything about God's existence or lack thereof. How in the world will you go about defining God in a way that's empirically operative? What kind of testable implications can you draw from a "God existence hypothesis"? It might come to a shock to a few of you, but the number of questions science can actually answer is actually extremely small.
This. It reminds me of a lecture on Cantor's theorem (essentially proving the set of all problems is much greater than the set of programs that can solve them). Science has a specific scope - it can only deal with things which are measurable and with which one can make falsifiable predictions. Attributes like holiness, omnipotence, etc. cannot be measured or determined in any way via the scientific method. By its very original name (natural philosophy), science deals with natural phenomena; it cannot disprove the existence of supernatural phenomena because it is outside the scope of science. Nonetheless, science can cast doubt on a set of supernatural beliefs by undermining said belief system's conceptions of the origins of the universe or the origin of humanity, but that's far different than "disproving God."
