At some point, you take the evidence you have for God and compare it to the evidence you have for no-God and develop your own belief about the matter. Proof when it comes even to proving what our mind is constructed from is perhaps not scientifically possible. In the same way, something that exists outside our universe is not subject to scientific study.There's a flaw in the statement that "you take the evidence for God and the evidence for No-God and develop your own belief about the matter." The quest for knowledge of the truth (otherwise known as "science") does not work that way. We don't take a claim and then look at the evidence for the "non-claim". All you have is a claim, and either you can back up that claim with evidence or you can't. It's called the "burden of proof". In any logical argument, the party making the claim has the burden of proof. If I tell you that there's an invisible purple dragon in my back yard, and that I have no direct evidence to back it up, would you believe me? What if I asked you to prove me wrong? Would you be able to? Would that mean I'm right?