Typical Science. vs. God Banter

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

The other night, I stayed up until 3:00 AM trying to prove that humans do not know everything and that there is the possibility of God. However, my friend, a complete cynic, believes that Science and Math can prove everything and that God DEFINITELY does not exist. If you have ever argued with someone who does not believe in God at all, then you'll understand how hard it is to reason with them. He was very close minded to things, only accepting what his eyes saw or what his teachers taught him. I wasn't even trying to prove God existed; I was trying to say that there is no evidence saying that God does exist and there is no evidence that God does not exist; therefore, one cannot say that God definitely does not exist.

Okay, put your thinking caps on because our verbal argument got pretty intense. He kept using various science/math theories and what not to support his side. I tried to use a simple common sense reasoning with a sprinkle of some Philosophy (aka if this is this and thus that is that haha) as rebuttals because I don't know as much Science as him (biology and engineering), even if I am taking Chemistry.

The only way to really get at someone is to get them to agree step by step until you corner them into thinking something they did not realize. This did not work well for me, even though it should have, because every little thing I said he would deny.

I said that human perception has a slight percent in error. He thought I was talking about individual person's error and how that can be fixed by numerous tests. I said that I was not talking about individual interception, but humans as a whole. What if what we know is not actually what is? Lamp may not be a lamp even if scientists prove it through observations and tests because certain facts may be beyond human comprehension, but, of course, he couldn't believe this. He responded that it is not possible because human error can be fixed. We kept going around in a bloody circle.

Then I said that facts are not facts. He said facts are facts. Well, if facts are modified or changed in any way, then how can they be facts? Are not facts forever? Do they not stay true before, now, and in the future? Are not facts TRUTH? I was trying to show that humans do not know Everything because if theories and facts are modified, then anything can be changed. Hence, we are fallible, and do make mistakes and do not know the Truth. He denies all of this by saying if Fact 1 is modified then it becomes Fact 2. But I was saying if Fact 1 changes to become Fact 2, then it cannot be a fact because it is true only for this time, it might be modified again.

From this, if I ever got an agreement with my side of the argument, then I would say that if humans do not know everything, then they cannot know for sure if God or any super natural events or existences do not exist because it is beyond human capacity. Also, I looked up famous scientists who believed in religion and some still believed in God even when discovering multiple constants and theories. How does he explain how his favorable and intellectual scientists believe in God?

But, in the end, he had the audacity to say he obviously won the argument and that I had no proof for anything. This really frustrates me when people are only thinking about what they can see or prove. Life and nature is too complex for humans to understand to the fullest extent. Science allows us to understand and work with ourselves and nature, but it is not everything that we know.

Real intellectual scientists would understand that religion and science are not separate entities but are part of a larger frame, and are both needed to understand the individual's self.

Bias, difficult and stubborn, needs to be smacked into place.