Well, so long as you aren't looking to just argue then I'd be willing to keep talking with you. My job isn't to convert anybody. That's God's job. I'm just here to answer for the faith as best I can.
Well, for starters, "science" is a method of observation and testing. Science itself has no opinion on the evidence for or against God.
True! Thats because they dont believe God exists.
"They?" Science isn't a "they." It's as I said, a method. And a method has no belief or prejudice. Those who use the method - scientists - do have beliefs and prejudices. They are the ones who don't believe God exists. Science itself, however, has no intrinsic anti-theism.
Now, many scientists, on the other hand, have default philosophical presuppositions about God that mandate that He be rejected a priori. Most scientists are naturalists or materialists, which requires them to dismiss any possibility of the supernatural or divine before they even start their scientific inquiry.
True! Thats because they dont believe in the supernatural or define.
This is rather circular in its reasoning. Essentially, you're saying that scientists don't believe in God because they don't believe in God.
What I'm trying to tell you is that most secular scientists, for reasons that having nothing to do with science, reject the idea of God as impossible before they begin their scientific inquiries. It is no surprise, then, that whatever science uncovers they interpret to confirm their anti-God prejudice. People like to think that science is coldly unbiased and designed to prevent corruption by prejudice. But this just isn't so. Scientists, the ones who do science, are full of biases and prejudices of all sorts. And their prejudices inevitably color how they interpret what the scientific method reveals.
Naturalism and materialism, however, are not scientific but philosophical points of view.
I believe science IS naturalistic and materialistic because they do not recognize the existence of the spiritual or supernatural
You appear to be confusing scientists with the scientific method. They aren't the same thing. A method can have no philosophical perspective. A method is merely a tool, like a hammer. Can a hammer be a naturalist? Can it believe in materialism? Obviously not. Nor can the scientific method.
The standard for what is real is based upon what our 5 senses tells us. Because humans set the standard for what is real, what our senses tells us is by definition; realm
Well, ask yourself how that standard was arrived at? How do any of us know that what we are perceiving as reality actually is reality? The truth is no one can say for sure that we aren't all living in a complex illusion ala The Matrix. We all just assume - without any way to prove it - that what we call reality truly is reality. But this requires an act of blind faith, a willingness to believe something is true without being able to prove it. You see, then, that even science is not without its own need of faith.
Selah.