Isn't science predicated upon the cyclical process of hypothesis?
That is to say an assumption is made, a test is executed, the results are recorded and the theorem either evolves or is dispelled. It seems atheism only gets as far as the hypothesis as to the notion of God's existence yet provides no qualitative data to either prove or disprove His existence. Furthermore, isn't one of the tenants of true science to explore ALL possibilities? Why is it that science stubbornly refuses to explore the idea of God? I know that the classic argument is that Darwinism, evolution, quantum physic, astrophysics and even more recently string theory, all provide various facets of the anti-God argument. Yet none of these theories explain how the complex amalgamation of matter/anti-matter/dark matter and void that is the universe came into being through random happenstance. The probability of which defies mathematical computation. Science focuses on the trunk branches and leaves of the tree but because it can neither see the roots nor test for them, it refutes that the roots even exist. If the premise of science is to discover truth, then why not attempt to discover the truth about God. Lastly, science, by its very nature, can not have any belief; only facts. Therefore what I am asking is for the facts that you have that provide irrefutable proof of God’s non-existence not your beliefs.
My "faith" (let's keep that word in mind, shall we) is based on believing without having tangible proof. It is believing even when those such as yourself feel so compelled to ridicule me. It is believing and having faith in a higher power to protect me and those whom I care for.
Now if we dissect the word faith and say at its purest definition that faith is "believing without proof." How would I prove myself to be a person of true faith if I were somehow prove that God exists? It is you, the atheist, who believe is nothing if it is not tangibly evident, that has the burden of proof as to the existence of God. My proof (for me) is my faith. If I were to prove through some tangible means that God exists I would show faithlessness not faithfulness.
So here we are, you as ever with the bird in your hands ready to act to the contrary to my answer to the question "Is this bird in my hands alive or dead? (look the fable up if you don't know what I'm referring to). If I prove God's existence I deny my faith and prove myself a hypocrite in this regard. If I live my life based on faith, you and your cohorts mock me mercilessly based on some self edifying pretense that since I (or any Christian for that matter) have not proven my God's existence that I am a fool (even though you present no empirical data to contrary but we'll leave the potentiality of the discussion for another day).
