Ok. I can explain how this statement is illogical and highlights your self-contradiction. It's because you're using the begging the question fallacy.
You are implying that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God if God exists, and therefore because it hasn't, it's unreasonable to believe he exists.
But you need to see 3 things:
1) when we do scientific experiments, we must assume a methodological naturalism. This allows us to isolate causes, get to reproducible results, and therefore learn about the mechanisms in the universe (how things work, how things happen).
2) what you're doing is extrapolating methodological naturalism (there are no extraneous, 'supernatural' forces acting in the experiment, simply the laws of physics and chemistry, a closed system) to the entire universe (the universe is a closed system, there is no supernatural, just physics and chemistry)
3) finally, you have no basis to trust the validity of the assumptions of science. I'm not saying that science is not valid. I'm saying that you have faith in the tenets of science, and you have extrapolated them into a philosophy called naturalism. You don't have evidence for what you believe. You cannot for example demonstrate how human reasoning is valid.
I'm very happy to chat further about this stuff. It's all about worldviews, it's not about evidence. We have the same evidence. We interpret it differently.
I can understand why you say these things, but you are guilty of what you say the religious are guilty of. It's quite clear, if you would think about the philosophy behind your statements.
I will give you one illustration. I was talking about God with a friend when he said there's no evidence for his existence. I asked him, "What would count as evidence of God to you? How could God prove his existence to you?"
He said, "If God were to give an indisputable sign, like if he were to move the stars into the shape of words saying, 'I AM GOD. WORSHIP ME.'"
I said, "Would everybody believe then? Would everybody think that was convincing evidence? How sure would you be that it wasn't aliens from another planet, and they'd worked out how to move the stars? People would believe all sorts of things. And each belief would be faith."
Science can't approach the question of the supernatural. As soon as you start to talk about God, you leave the scientific method, and you venture into philosophy, theology and history. If you insist non-scientific sources of truth are not valid then you give up science itself and then you don't believe in anything.
Posted from TSR Mobile