The fundamental basis of all science - "I'm an idiot" and "I don't know"
To translate from internet bombastics, that means simply saying that objects fall down due to gravity is not enough. It must be proven. It can be the most obvious, and often the most obvious facts and statements are the most difficult to prove. But nevertheless they MUST be proven, otherwise they are conjecture or hypothesis. Ask any mathematician, and even if you are proving something complex, and in doing so you require to prove several other statements along the way, they must be proven, or at the very least, given references to other proofs done by others. Only then can your proof be considered valid.
Why do I bring this up? Faith is something lost in translation from Aramaic into English. If God required blind faith, we would not have the Bible (and this can apply to any and all religions) as there are interactions between God and people (Moses and the Burning Bush, or even Christ himself). Now a skeptic should not take those stories for granted (just as a person should not be labeled a heretic for merely questioning statements on his or her journey to a "proof".)
I personally have come across certain interesting questions regarding God, and His existence through my mathematical career. I lacked faith and I still consider myself to lack faith, hence why I seek for proof. But these arent the puerile proofs one might imagine, like literally seeing God with ones own eyes. I have studied through history, and converted key data points into a numeric function, and observed changes in that function, such as when Christ was born (which if you read Will Durant, he documents Christ as a historical figure.) So this for me personally was a huge and significant step. Little by little I have noticed other aspects and other peculiarities in mathematics and physics, and with some I have managed to proof that God does in fact exist, and Christ does in fact exist. (Maybe one day I will publish these proofs but they do require mathematical skills, alongside a mentality that is open to accepting the proof as well as not considering this very exercise as heresy).
Too often we are faced with people on both sides that claim to know all. Atheists, along with clerics that are afraid of saying "I don't know." The bottom line, for me, as a scientist, is that the proof is a journey, and along the way one must always have the "I'm an idiot" and "I don't know" attitude, of proving the seemingly obvious, and proving all steps along the way, to have a rigorous results. But we are in a very perturbed era, and we have lost the rigor of philosophical thought, reason, as even the notion of truth and fact has been blurred. Thus, the nature of God is quickly being lost, as some Atheist believe God is literally an old man in the clouds (projected from their impression of other's beliefs) and some Christians belief that the Bible is ad literam, (the Earth was created in seven days). If one cannot agree on the basic axioms, then the proof or faith cannot be established.
To end this, I am not done in my own quest for faith. I have some proofs but for example, I still am proving life after death. I am still at the stage of defining the problem, before outlining a proof. Until them, I will simply say, "I'm an idiot, and I don't know.
The premise is flawed. Science, by it's very nature, can neither prove nor disprove anything not of the natural realm. If god or any supernatural entity exists and has power, it does so and operates outside the laws of nature.
Simply put, science cannot address magic.
“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy