can we prove the existence of God with science,technology and evolution?

Science 'works' by postulating a hypothesis as the basis for exploring possibilities and arriving at scientifically sound deductions. It does this with "string theory". First the idea is presented, "What if there were miniscule 'strings' that vibrated..." and then theoretical physicists get to work working out where the hypothesis could lead to; perhaps to discovering more about the Big Bang theory. If the hypothesis is flawed, they will discover that and reject it, then go back to the drawing board. By posing various hypotheses, scientists are thinking about a foundational idea that promises to powerfully unify their perception of the universe. All science begins that way. Theories are seldom born ready-made; they begin with observations about the world and the universe we live in. Now, let me quote more on this from the book below as this has a direct bearing on your question:

"Since the hypothesis is a foundational assumption, there is a real danger of arguing in a circle and finishing up where we started. If, for example, I begin with the assumption (hypothesis) that ‘a God exists who created all things’, I cannot subsequently use the existence of the universe as an argument for the existence of God. In other words, reasoning that goes as follows is invalid:

1. A God exists who created the universe.

2. The universe exists.

3. Therefore it must had had a creator (a God who created the universe).

In a valid syllogism the statements (1) and (2) would lead to a conclusion (3) that is not contained in either (1) and (2), but in this example we simply end up by deducing what we assumed in the first place. Interestingly, if we abandon the hypothetic method and remove proposition (1) we also remove the fallacy and arrive at what is, in essence, the traditional ‘cosmological argument’ for the existence of God (which reasons from the existence of the cosmos to the need for a ‘first cause’). However, as we shall see, there are distinct advantages in persevering with the hypothetic approach in spite of the potential pitfalls.

A further example of circular argument is the idea promoted by some atheists that ‘science disproves the existence of God’. The assertion is based on the claim that science presents no evidence for the existence of supernatural forces or phenomena. It sounds plausible until you look a little more closely. The argument can be expressed as a syllogism as follows:

1. Science is the study of the physical universe.

2. Science produces no evidence for the existence of non-physical entities.

3. Therefore non-physical entities such as God do not exist.

Again the fallacy is clear. In point (1) ‘science’ is defined as the study of the physical or material world. This statement thereby excludes by definition any consideration by science of non-physical causes or events. The proposition then argues from the silence of science concerning non-material realities that such realities do not exist.

"By the same logic, if you define birds as ‘feathered creatures that fly’, there’s no such thing as an ostrich. It’s fairly obvious in this example whose head is in the sand. The correct conclusion, of course, is not that ostriches are mythical birds but that (on your restrictive definition of ‘bird’) they are not birds. In the same way, to define science as the study of the material universe simply prohibits science from making statements about a non-material entity like God. If the remit of science is deliberately restricted to the physical realm, the fact that science (so defined) tells us nothing about God has no bearing whatever on his existence or non-existence, as most scientists recognize.

[The] "idea that the only meaningful (and non-tautological) statements are those capable of being verified by sense experience is actually a venerable philosophical theory known as ‘logical positivism’. It claims that what cannot be verified by science has no reality, and implies that in studying the material universe science actually encompasses all legitimate knowledge. Logical positivism was the philosophical flavour of the day in the 1920s and 1930s and was popularized by A.J. Ayer in his book Language, truth and logic (1936). But Alfred Ayer himself, writing fifty years later, declared: ‘Logical positivism died a long time ago. I don’t think much of Language, truth and logic is true… it is full of mistakes.’ In spite of this, many philosophers recognize in the ‘new atheism’ of writers like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Stenger and Wolpert a reincarnation of this discredited school of thought – and do so with grave concern."

It is reasonable to advance ‘the hypothesis of God’ in which we assume that God exists and see where it leads – following the example of the string theorists and science in general. But evolutionists refuse to do that. Are they just running scared?

You god is fake...and santa is not real either.

Atheists can get better advice because they don't believe that a God gives them animals and fish with eyes I might add to eat. So, they might not get high cholesterol and strokes and heart disease.

Genesis 9:3 :Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

Leviticus 11:1-47:And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat.

Well you should start by giving the attributes of the god character you're referring to. Just the term "god" could refer to any of a huge range of proposed beings, including innumerable ones never even put forth to either of us. Don't equivocate with the indistinct term "god."

Without any primary attributes of your specific god character, how would you know what phenomena to expect from its existence(to prove that the god character is causal within existence)? Negative attributes like "spirit" only say what it's not("not physical"), and that isn't a primary attribute. Even relational attributes(like omnipotence) don't say what the god is actually supposed to be.

See, how it works is, you ask a question and OTHER people answer it. You don't answer your own question so you can spread your agenda around.

Thanks.

'preciate it.

Where are your peer-reviewed academic articles to back this up? Or are these just your unfounded assertions/"beliefs"?

are you asking us or telling us?

Someone's a tad behind the 8 ball... Stephen Hawking has already proved through science that God does NOT exist. At least not in the way religion says.

Thinking God used evolution to create the diversity of species is like thinking Santa used your parents to deliver the presents.