God's existence

1.) No you wouldn't be told to get out, science accepts every viewpoint no matter how ridiculed it will be. Also it doesn't discriminate others beliefs so would still respect them. By saying that science cannot prove or disprove God is equally as valid me saying a Christi couldn't, the reason that the idea of God as a being is so powerful is because it is so difficult to disprove. How do you disprove something that outlives existence, or that you cannot see and has no observable affect on the universe? You cannot, it is sciences business to figure out the intangible the world would never have any understanding otherwise. Example, until someone questioned it the Earth was defined as a giant turtle. We could never observe that with the technology they had and people genuinely believed it, but it was mysterious and unknown so we used science to find a way to figure out what it actually was. 2.) Science is a big waffle of ideas, but just because fewer people understand them does not mean they are not correct. The idea that something is wrong, can result in the phrasing of something being changed slightly or the idea could be scrapped al together. The reason science is reviewed is too be proven more accurate, more correct. As technology improves so will our understanding. So yes there will be miss calculations, but they will be so minute it would be impossible to be more that 1% out. Maths is not the result of the observation of nature, it is a universal way to give value too it. If you were too have a pineapple and another pineapple how many would you have? Although simple this isn't calculating nature it is counting. Maths is a response to the counting, it groups together. Measuring nature can be flawed, but in this day and age it's negligible especially in this case. 3.) Scientists spend year's even lifetimes arguing one fact, maybe the value of a number, maybe a whole idea. Science is not the acceptance of blind faith it takes more people to see what you've written and go okay lets take this idea further, than the months you would have spent on it. Science works on a question and answer basis. Nothing moves faster than the speed of light, this isn't simple and with 8000 characters given would not be enough to educate you on the matter. The same premise applies to your logic as well what made God, what evidence is there for a God. By simply saying 'I can question these facts' shows no favour. The idea of science would be to figure them out. Nope I'm afraid no generation can a' we're closing the book of science' not even close to it, whoever you have heard this of is very mistaken. Like I said everything is revised to make sure we are right and more accurate. 4.) simple fact being the 'big bang' doesn't defend either case, but by resulting in saying 'there's no proof it must be God' instead of trying to figure it out is blind faith at its finest. Also the bible is flawed almost the entire way through, both scientifically and morally. Using it to defend an argument is a double edged sword and you're holding the sharp end. 5.) what you are saying here is that science can only understand what can be experimented with. The problem being that through wanting to discover we discovered almost everything we could that was testable on Earth. Finance stops the discoveries of such simple things because they will not benefit society and therefor deemed useless. So if hypothetical UFO were to land we would study it because we could learn from it, but a meteorite we cannot learn from. First of had Jesus (over 2000 yes ago) discovered some form of water walking physics, without a doubt it would be uses today, second things that cannot be explained need to have an explanation if you accept something as impossible that is what it will become. However there is no evidence Jesus walked on water, brought the dead back to life, existed, and the fact that it is written in a book that has been translated poorly more than 2 times a lot of what in it is most likely more inaccurate.