Proofs of the existence of God

The claim of atheists that the existence of God must be sustained by the "scientific" method is inconsistent, at least.
Before the entity A are able to prove the existence of the entity B (outside from A) he must prove the existence of itself, primarily.
Since A (man) is able to prove his existence only in a auto-referencial manner, he cannot have the pretension to prove the existence of God with a "scientific" method. The Cartesian "cogito ergo sum" is not enough to prove "scientifically" the our personal existence. Why, do the atheists search for a proof that they have not found for themselves?

First of all, excuse me for being late to reply your speech. I hope your interest about this argument isn't fade away in the intervening period.
Obviously, my message was formulate in a general way. The atheistic claims can be diversified among them. In many cases (the majority) I've found just this type of claim. On the other end, if you will read all the replies to my message you'll found one forum member that greeted me to be part of the atheistic world just on the basis of that message of mine! He, too, makes that claim, evidently!
Moreover, about the "pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo" you know that your "seeming" isn't enough to prove your assert. I also believe in my personal existence like you, but this conviction is not derived from the "scientific" method, but from the auto-referential feeling of mine to be existent, simply.
The rest is "mambo strambo" (italian for 'strange mambo').
By.

First of all, excuse me for being late to reply your speech. I hope your interest about this argument isn't fade away in the intervening period.
The scientists (and not "the science") before prove something outside them have to prove the personal existence of themselves. The experimental evidence gets through our sensorial system. The conclusions/interpretations of this system are all of a kind auto-referential. You spoke about "we", but our personal existence isn't derived from a "scientific" method, but it derived from the feeling to be existent, simply.
My argument is that is illogical to have the claim that every beings can be proved (or, falsified [Popper docet], if you prefer)ONLY with the "scientific" method. We humans are one example of this assert. God can be another being belonging to this ensemble.
On the other end, if I've said "that which you already now", my "attempt to discredit science" was non-existent, in any case. In what manner a not-provided-evidence-of-itself-being would be able to discredit another ens (even supposing this latter is existing...)?
By.

First of all, excuse me for being late to reply your speech. I hope your interest about this argument isn't fade away in the intervening period.
You are right. Obviously, my message was formulate in a general way. The atheistic claims can be diversified among them. In many cases (the majority) I've found just this type of claim. On the other end, if you will read all the replies to my message you'll found one forum member [Crashfrog] that greeted me to be part of the atheistic world just on the basis of that message of mine! He, too, makes that claim, evidently! In any case I take note of your different position.
My argument - but I firmly believe that it is an universal belief of every thoughtful people - is that our personal existences can be proved only by the auto-referential sensorial system of us. In other words, the proof of our personal existences aren't derived from a "scientific" method, but it derived from the feeling of us to be existent, simply. It follows that it is illogical the claim to prove the existence of God EXCLUSIVELY with the "scientific" method, because exists the possibility that this ens is part of this ensemble, too (this ensemble includes also humans). I am not asserting that we can prove the existence of God by our feeling that he exists. I am only saying that the "methods" to prove his existence are OUTSIDE the simplistic "scientific" one (that - we must remember -is based on the "replication and observation" principle, by the way).
If you want receive an exhaustive and careful examination of the proofs about the existence of a God Creator I believe is more apt to establish between us a correspondence dialogue (by snail mail).
If you agree it, I will send you my personal address.
Thanks for your concern.
By.

"Assuming" is not "proving". Are you sure that we give exactly the same "weight of evidence" to the existences' proofs about us than the proofs of the existence of God? It seems to me that we often take for granted our existences but we claim a disproportionate demands about His existence. Why? Only because we aren't able to see him? If this is the case, we claim the same demands about the existence's proofs of the quarks? Everyone of you have seen (smelled, touched, tasted, heard) a single quark? So, maybe analogical proofs can be presented for the existence of God.