Or you should rely on your 'faith' and resist attempting to justify it with pseudo-science.
And what if you have an hypothesis, but no facts to support it? Is it false because you have no evidence?


"People of Faith" are by their nature "believers".
"People of Science" are by their nature "understanders".
You will never make a "believer" understand, unless he already believes.
You will never make an "understander" believe, unless he can understand.
Belief requires faith, and understanding requires logic and/or facts.
So I dont "believe" that these two type of perception will ever come to an "understanding".


I dont see any justification for this sentiment at all.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - probably from the bible I think.
I think this is an excellent moral, whether there is or isnt a god. Why MUST god exist to this moral to be good?
Unless morals are just rules you are scared of breaking, or god will punish you eventually.
I do not believe this is what morals are, its just how the "church" tries to use them.
Morals are SELF-imposed rules to strive TOWARDS tomake ourselves better than animals.


"Undetectable" means we have not YET designed a tool to see him with. Bacteria was still a killer before microscopes.
"Invisible" only means we cannot SEE him. You cant see wind, but it can still blow your house down.
"Outside the realm of reality" is too ambiguous to work with. Has different meanings to different people.
"No god at all" would be different because ... err ... ummm ... just different OK! Use your imagination.