Well, we tried...

In all good conscience we want to give those who come under the Sensil Spotlight the opportunity to fill in any gaps we find in their reasoning. So we contacted our friends at DoesGodexist.org to give them the opportunity to explain why our critical review of their proof was misguided.

First a recap: this "proof" is subtitled a "logical, pragmatic proof of God from a purely scientific perspective." In our correspondence, the site's representative has clarified the following:

• despite describing their proof as "logical", they consider our questions about logical errors in their argument to be "philosophical" in nature, so not relevant. Instead they refer us to http://www.rzim.org/, which turns out to be about Christian Apologetics, not basic logic. (By basic I mean If A is a dog and all Bs are As then B is a dog). I recommend Wikipedia as being shorter and more informative.
• they left a number of (unspecified) steps out of the "proof"
• they left some ontological (ie not scientific) evidence out of the "proof"
• the evidence for their assertions re: time and space and energy, is circular
• they included the evidence for design in their proof, which they accept is not scientific

So what are we left with? A logically incoherent proof, that depends on ontological and apologetic arguments rather than science, and for which some of the key evidence is circular. It's not very impressive. In fact it's so unimpressive it's hard to accept that the original assertion of a "logical, pragmatic proof of God from a purely scientific perspective" can really be sincerely held. Once again, why does God need these people to lie for Him?