If he is wrong, then why is he right?

Now that you started changing the definition of words, nobody can believe a word you say. Not really sure why your still posting on here. It all gets labelled the same (even the truth) and pops straight in the bin.

There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.

God has never spoken to modern man, for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.

If we had scientific proof of God's existence, we would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
If we had scientific proof of God's existence, the study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.

If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary. How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc. There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.

Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.

When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyse any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity -- there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist. That is how we know that they are all imaginary.

Well the scientific angle is a no go, because you keep changing the definition of words on the fly. Scientfic conversation is impossible when a clown starts doing that.

Since you keep posting your shitty arguments and ''proofs'' :

Answers from religious doctrine are rarely adequate for nonbelievers. In fact, many fervent believers in God reject the argument about God’s timelessness because even timeless beings need explanations for their existence. But if God is the creator of all things, and yet also requires cause, we face an infinite regress of causes. The only way to avoid this infinite regress problem is to state — as Christian theology has always done — that God is the first cause and is entirely self existent, meaning the reason for God’s existence is contained within the very definition of God.
While this viewpoint certainly may be attractive, it still fails to convince skeptics who are more likely to favor the idea that the universe contains within itself the reason for its own existence. If that could be true of God, why couldn’t it be true of the universe? There is certainly reason to be skeptical about the common sense intuition that everything must have a cause or that everything must have a reason to be as it is. This perennial assumption has been challenged by the physics of the 20th century that uncovered a mysterious quantum world where things often do not appear to have reason to be the way they are.
The common sense assumption that everything must have a cause or a reason to be as it is also suffers from what is called the fallacy of composition. This fallacy comes about when we assume that properties of the parts apply to the whole. For example, just because every member of the human race has a mother, we cannot infer that the human race itself has a mother. Similarly, a collection of spherical things would not itself have to be spherical. In discussions about the origins of the universe, we would say that just because every individual part of the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the entire universe has a cause.
The realization that our universe had some sort of beginning has opened up exciting new conversations about origins. In some ways, a universe with a beginning seems to beg for a cause. But if the universe came into being from nothing , it becomes deeply problematic to speak of anything having caused the universe to exist. Some cosmologists would argue that our universe is the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation. Such fluctuations do not have causes in the traditional sense, so they argue this does away with our universe needing a cause. But there is a significant problem that  the vacuum that fluctuates is not nothing. Quantum vacuums — which are what you get when you remove from space all the particles and energy — are real. They have activity, laws and rules. Our universe may have fluctuated into existence from such a vacuum, but the vacuum remains unexplained.
Cosmologist Lee Smolin suggests in Life of the Cosmos, that black holes can give birth to new universes. He proposes that our present universe emerged out of a black hole in some other “meta-universe.” And perhaps our universe is presently birthing new universes. Such a process, while clearly speculative, provides a caution against extrapolating from common sense notions of causality to philosophical conclusions about the nature of all of reality.

You don't stop talking about this bible on this thread! Why stop now?

Why would it be off-topic? Because you dont want to talk about it because obviously you cant refute shit

How do you prove that fetuses know about the existance of God?

Could you refute anything that the author said?

Little children most accept god? Yes they also accept Santa Claus, Unicorns ...

Evidence to disprove God and the bible can be found here:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

One day, perhaps, we’ll all be free of conditioned thinking and learn to rely on observable and testable evidence when examining religious claims. One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully coexist. Whatever force might be watching us now probably realizes that the majority of us are currently incapable of achieving these goals. If this being is observing our planet during a search for an enlightened race that’s ready for the deepest secrets of the universe, it should probably try us again later.

I neither deny nor acknowledge the existence of a God as I can't prove or disprove a negative

The OP stated proof of god, not evidence. Sorry, talking about evidence is off-topic I'm afraid.
Your rules remember, we must adhere to them.

So you wanna troll post? K, You're now on ignore. You're either a troll or a retard, most likely a combo of both. Either one, I don't care anymore, anyone else reading the posts on this page(and practically everyone you've ever made, since all have been refuted) sees just how uneducated, inconclusive, contradictory, and plain stupid you really are.