This is what I've never quite understood, the argument that because science isn't an absolute truth, that it requires belief, even faith, then it must be equally as reasonable or plausible as religion.
Everyone in this topic has a chance to die today. It's possible. Do any of you have any reason to believe you will die today? Do you have reason to believe this forum is anything but me, the great evil mind, and every user on this forum is actually me, except for you? If I told you I'm a billionaire, would you believe it? What if I told you tomorrow World War 3 would start? Can you prove without any shred of doubt, right now, that any of these are untrue or not possible? Of course not. And yet if I made a topic claiming they were true, I would most likely have everyone, religious or otherwise, disagree and contest the truth of my claims, with or without evidence. So why then, by the mere fact science cannot be absolutely proven as the ultimate truth, do people argue against its evidence based on the fact it can be argued at all on any level? We should debate merit and evidence, not the idea something can be possible.
When our lives are constantly based on our beliefs and expectations, why does possibility even come into our conclusions? It's possible Tom Brady will decide to fly up to my town tonight and go to a restaurant where I'll meet him and become good friends with him. I have no reason at all to believe that will happen though, I'm very convinced that won't happen. I have no reason to believe you are all a figment of my imagination, even though you could be. This is what bothers me about the opposition of science, questioning its practical validity merely because it can be doubted in any way.
So the question becomes, which of you are agnostic about every action and possibility in your life? After all, we can even doubt probability, so why take one position over another? Why believe or disbelieve I am a billionaire without evidence either way? It's interesting, how the average person would need evidence of my being a billionaire to believe me. And no one needs evidence to believe I'm not just a collaboration of fifty individuals typing up these posts for a psychology experiment. Likewise, shouldn't they need evidence of a god's existence to believe in it? Not just the fact it is possible, after all, I am the great evil mind controlling the forum posters (except you, the guy reading this), or I am the fifty scientists typing this post up, or I am the billionaire playboy. They're possible, so should you believe them? This leads us to holy books, which we can certainly debate whether or not they should be believed to be divine evidence.