[ QUOTE ]
You are confusing me - you say I believe in something without evidence. I believe there is no God because there is no evidence of his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way for us to "see" (or communicate/interact/whatever) beyond the universe, but you are claiming that there is nothing beyond the universe which possibly could have set the universe in motion. So, you are believing in something without evidence. I think any confusion comes up with the term "god" (which carries baggage due to common use) which is why I chose "higher dimensional being" or something like that instead. I'm not saying that I believe in anything beyond the universe (because it would be purely speculation and rather silly to speculate on something I can only have zero data on, and if that something existed, it would likely be well beyond anything my earth-bound comprehension could understand). But I am saying that believing that NOTHING is beyond the universe is equally unfounded speculation. Its like a simple statistics test, you can reject a hypothesis by showing it is not probable, but you can't prove a hypothesis to be true. You can only reject on lack of evidence, not prove.

Not supportable: "I believe there is no God because there is no evidence of his existence."

Supportable: "I do not believe there is a God because there is no evidence of his existence."

The difference may seem subtle, but it is significant.