> I think there is plenty of evidence.

I am speaking of observation, not revelation.

> I just wanted to note that plenty of people of faith don't ascribe to the idea of blind faith.

People don't say "it's faith" when they can find any other reason why they consider something to be true, "it's faith" is the fallback when they don't have any other reason. Whether they then find some reason for why "it's faith" is a good reason is secondary to that simple observation. You just don't hear "it's raining outside!" - "how do you know?" - "it's faith!", but you do hear "god exists!" - "how do you know?" - "it's faith!" or "homosexuality is sin!" - "how do you know?" - "it's faith!".

> What evidence do you have to support this statement?

Well, what evidence do you have that the question whether falling from a tall building increases your well-being is a scientific one (I assume you think that it is?)?

That question is hard to answer because it's difficult to tell what it is that you actually want to know, but the answers to those two questions should be similar.

> I can see how you could start with that assumption and find ways to justify it, but I don't see how you can conclusively prove the initial premise.

I think the more interesting question is: Do you disagree and if so, why?

Whether I can prove that premise depends on which assumptions/axioms you accept. With some assumptions, I can prove it, with others, I can't. But if you chose axioms under which I can't prove it, I can instead disprove lots of things you consider to be true, which might make you rethink your axioms.

> My point is that it seems like you have a moral code that states that all things can be proven within the bounds of science and what is observable by humans, no?

Nope, I don't.

However, in that statement I do recognize a common misunderstanding of methodological naturalism (which is basically the defining philosophy of science), so let me try and explain:

Science is the idea of developing a model of the world that mirrors reality as best as currently possible by constantly testing the model against reality and throwing out/changing anything where tests give a different result than the model would suggest, and gradually accepting parts of the model as tentatively reliable the more tries to produce contradictions in tests have failed (that is to say: the more tries to produce a different result than the model suggests do result in what the model suggests nonetheless). What it in particular is not is a set of facts (any science "fact" is open to demonstration that it's actually not so and will be thrown out if that happens, though that doesn't normally happen for well-tested parts of the model), and it's also not a dogma: There is nothing that science disallows from being tested, and no method that is disallowed to perform the testing, as long as it can be shown that it can be expected to fail if the hypothesis to be tested is wrong in some aspect. It's a perfectly fine scientific hypothesis that prayer improves health outcomes after operations, and it's perfectly reasonable to then test this hypothesis in an experiment that involves praying for people and then checking whether any effect on health outcomes can be observed. Actually, that particular hypothesis has been suggested, and has been tested--and the test didn't show anything that would support the hypothesis, which is why it's not part of the scientific model of the world, but the point is that there is no dogma in science that would have prevented this hypothesis from becoming a well-regarded scientific theory, had it been demonstrated to work, in which case prayer now presumably would be a standard part of medical procedures.

So, in that sense, science doesn't actually subscribe to a distinction between the "natural" and the "supernatural": If there is any claimed observable effect, science is willing to take a look at whether the claimed observable effect can indeed be observed, and if it can, you have a scientific theory, whether it's masses moving in gravitational fields, germs causing diseases, or prayer healing the ill.

However, it is important to note that science does not proclaim that if you can't observe something, it therefore isn't. Claiming that something does not exist is just as much a scientific claim as claiming that it does, and so, if you claim non-existence, you have to perform tests to show that that claim is true just as when you wanted to show existence. As long as you haven't demonstrated some claim to either be true or to be false, you simply don't know whether it is true, and thus don't get to claim either way. Note that this is not to be confused with a claim that something won't ever be known (which again would be a claim that needs to be demonstrated)--what is unknown might well become known at a later point, but as long as it's unknown, it is unknown, and thus has to be treated just as every other claim of which the truth is unknown.

So, no, I don't claim that everything can be proven within the bounds of science and observation, but that if (and as long as) scientific methodology (which would ultimately mean some form of observation) does not provide any evidence, it is unreasonable to believe a claim. There might well be claims that are true that cannot (yet) be demonstrated to be either true or false. But as long as there is no evidence either way, I can't distinguish the ones that are true from the ones that are false, so I withhold belief on all of them.

All of that has little to do with morals. Morals, however, can be figured out using that same methodology. Sensible morals are all about consequences that one person's actions have on other people, and those consequences can be observed.