It's not objective proof of God's existence that we want, but the experience of God's presence. - Frederick Buechner
What you fail to acknowledge is that it is equally baffling to many of us that you believe everything came from nothing. Even Dawkins now states that the argument for design is overwhelming. Frank Turek is an interesting dude. The book he co-authored called "Why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" is very interesting.
This thread is gonna get good.
Human knowledge has progressed greatly since the time the Bible was written. Back then, without the benefit of new scientific learnings, particularly in the field of quantum mechanics, it may have been hard to understand how a universe could seemingly spring from nothing.
But even for those that still find the prevailing science unsettling, putting stock in an ancient book of preposterous stories requires a deliberate path of ignoring evidence to the contrary - or worse, celebrating the act of ignoring contrary evidence under the banner of "faith".
Suffice it to say you will always have your faith and I will have mine. I choose to believe in a universe that has a true beginner. I believe in a world that would exist in total chaos and lack any morality without the teaching of the Bible. I choose to believe we are in the exact spot we are in the universe and our galaxy not by chance or because it just has to be that way(it doesn't), but because God put us here. Science continues to catch up and give more evidence to the plausibility of a creator. As I said, you believe that many galaxies could support life and we happened to land on the one that appears to be designed(even though you don't believe it is). Historians of all faiths have largely reached a consensus that Jesus was a real person. I choose to believe that the Bible is true from "In the beginning" to "amen".
At least we can be cordial. That's a step above some people.
What is science, but the belief in observations. The scientific method does not provide for "facts" nor "proof" nor "truth" but the statistics of how often something has been observed, and the interpretations of the results. A scientific theory is something which has been observed in such a way very often. A scientific law is something which has been observed almost all the time.
However, these observations are based on belief and logic; I will provide 4 tenets which science must hold true to be considered valid.
1. The basics of the faith you have for science, and your belief of its veracity is based in your senses. You believe that what you feel, touch, smell, hear, and see are the undeniable truth.
2. You further believe that your brain is capable of correctly interpreting what your senses give you.
3. Science further believes in the linearity of knowledge (i.e. the past occurred, the present is now, the future will occur).
4. And the last belief I will impart is that we believe that our memories are correct (i.e. your memories actually occurred).
Scientifically, it is nigh impossible to prove the veracity of these beliefs, as the tools we could attempt to use to test these features, would be developed by the beliefs of these 4 tenets. All of our sensors which we use for science, are based on these principles. And we have found in the past that some of our sensors are wrong due to the poor interpretations of their results. At the very least, we scientists understand that undoubtedly our sensors are flawed.
Now, using these 4 tenets, someone can tell you whether your ability to use them are poor (e.g. Alzheimer's Syndrome, Mental Disorder, Drugs, injuries, genetic evolutions/mutations, poor senses); however, science cannot not prove these features objectively valid nor true.
Science cannot prove God real, just as science cannot prove God false. Science can only show what has been observed, and whether the "scientific community" statistically believe the interpretations to show God real or false. Science is based on the observations performed, but realistically these observations are only performed in a small sample size, as no-one and no sensor can be everywhere at once.
I cringe every time I read about a "proof" or "cure" in the news, as nothing but our abstract creations are capable of objective proofs (e.g. math, where we objectively state that 1+1=2). However, in the real world, everything is subjective, including science.
I will add a 5th tenet of science which as scientist most of us take for granted: the belief that what others have done actually occurred as they state. Many things taken for granted by scientists are based on the observations and help from others before them, and even those on the same team. Because it is nigh impossible to approach science from first principals.
As a physicist and engineer, I will add that science is incredibly useful, but it is not objectively correct, nor the only thing belief. And I will lastly add that science, based on the 4-5 tenets of belief which I've listed above, has almost become the "world religion" in that the novices/poorly educated people believe the teachings of science to be undeniable fact, especially when it becomes a big story in the news, even when it has not been statistically shown to be more than likely true (i.e. with several scientific teams attempting to obtain similar results; e.g. many of the "weight-loss treatments we hear about). And, scientific experts often scoff at, at times even persecute, skeptics/non-believers in science because they do not believe in the objective veracity of science.