Science deals with hard objective provable (and hopefully proven) facts, and I have a lot of respect for that, and is probably why I like it so much. But as for what might not be able to be that way, some of us (most of us probably, if we sat around and thought about it for long enough, etc) Do still try to calculate percentages of what we might think maybe might be more likely to be true than false, and then the other way around for what might be false, and try to do some (if not most) of our thinking based on that, etc. Which also affects what we might believe, or else don't believe, etc. Knowing they cannot be absolutely proven yet, and sometimes based on different evidences that don't apply to all (or that maybe don't apply, or aren't the same for all, etc) but like, with myself for example, I reject any of my own beliefs that fall to less than 50% in my own mind in favor of what is much more likely (to me), and this is how I do a lot of my thinking when it comes to beliefs, or for what can't be proven as solidly as some of the facts in science can, etc. But the problem is, this is different for everybody, etc. Some things I think are true, or are more likely true, because they are the more likely possibility to me, even though I can't 100% prove them to someone else, etc. It can draw on evidence such as subjective experiences, or feelings that you have or get, along with what you might think could be the facts about the subject, all come into play when an individual is deciding what might or might not be more than likely true or false for them or not, etc. I do my best to try and be clear now though with other people at least as to whether this is something I think is more than likely true about a subject, and when it is not, but is actual factual objective proven already, by science or whatever, objective fact, etc. I try anyway, or it is something that I have been working on recently, but might not always get 100% right yet. Trying to get used to saying like "If this, then that" or "If that, then this" and so on and so forth, etc, when it comes to such subjects that are not totally testable or provable like with the subject of Christianity and religion, and things like that.
For example like my saying that if there is a God of the whole universe, then he cannot be like God as he is described or depicted to us in the Old Testament, and if God in the Old Testament really is or ever was real or truly exists, and Jesus was not literally either one of these God's (God in the Old Testament, or God of the whole universe, etc) then he has (or they both have to be) (both Jesus and YHWH) less than the God of the whole universe, and has to be God the Holy Spirit, etc. And I say these things because I have calculated them to be the most likely possibilities (or possibly only possibilities) of these conditional "if's" in my own mind, etc. Also that God of the whole universe cannot be fully omniscient unless the whole entire universe, and everything in it, is entirely deterministic, etc. Because that's another one I have, etc. And I have others, but am just going to provide these for right now as examples, etc. One can also posit all the other "if's" after all also, etc. Like the one's that center around God in the Old Testament being made up or being fashioned/thought up/made up by men, as just one example, or other things like that, etc. But naturally, I don't consider those last kind of if statements or lines of logic/reasoning to be the most, or more likely of the possibilities, etc.
Take Care/God Bless.
