Science has not and cannot prove that God does not exist

I did the same and persecuted Christianity previous to belief in it. You read the Bible, but did you take into account everything besides the words on the page? Did you ask who was speaking, who is the audience, and what events occurred for the conntext? Faith is belief in the reliability of a God who makes Himself intangible. It would require no effort to believe only in that which you see, feel, hear, taste, or smell. God wants people to love Him because they want to period. He has no use for those who would believe Him for any other reason. They have an old adage; " To him who believes, no proof is necessary. To him who disbelieves, no proof is sufficient." Human nature possesses the attribute of stubbornness even in the face of logical reasons to incline their belief. How many times have you seen someone lose a spouse in an accident, and refuse to believe they are dead? You have seen people mumbling on a deathbed to God and did not percieve anything divine. That is presumption. God states He will only reeveal Himsrlf to those who come to him in humilty, not the arrogant position of trying to disprove Him. I could say i don't believe in you because maybe we are not really having this conversation. Maybe a machine is generating these words. I have seen machines generate responses before, but I have never seen you. Therefore there is more to belief than sight. I choose to believe you are a real person. But even if I chose to disbelieve that, it would not diminish that you exist as a real person. And would you want to meet me simply for the sake of answering me on a question that assumes you don't exist? The same is true with God. Even if evidence existed that shows both He and the person of Jesus Christ exist, it does not imply that people would believe Him to be God. That has been the point of why I opened with the title of my debate. It illustrates that belief is brought forth deliberately by an act of the will, not merely by the presence of visible evidence. Even with visible evidence, you can have two different beliefs on the identity, and qualities of what is observed. The existence of God and Jesus will ever remain open to the critical nature of man's speculation. Therefore, to me, the testimony of Jesus makes perfect sense. He claimed to be sent of God, and He was doubted. He gave them signs and wonders that they might believe His testimony, and they accused Him of witchcraft. He gave them the scriptures they followed and asked them to judge Him by them, and they began accusing Him of disrespecting the high priest Caiaphas. He told thim He was the Messiah they had long waited for after having given them physical evidence to show His fulfillment of the prophecies they believed concerning the Messiah, and they put Him to death. All of these things with the inclusion of the Archaeological evidence we have that the majority of the events in the Bible occurred is more than enough proof for me to believe. But I approached God, because i wanted God, His love, and His promise of redemption to be true, not because the evidence impelled me to investigate His validity. I should think this applies to any belief that is held. Science being neutral, and also a product of man, therefore lacks the requisite tools necessary for such a perception to be made. We can only find it true or false on an individual basis given our perception of what is beheld by us and the choice we determine in response.