Due to a limitation in the kinds of questions that science can answer more than a limitation in the Supreme Being.

 

I like how you put that, it makes sense. Just because science hasn't proven something doesn't mean that it cannot exist. Einstein theorized the existence of gravatational waves many years ago. Only recently were these type waves proven to exist. Einstein was not wrong, simply because science was not yet at that point capable of verifying his belief. To me it is silly to say that God does not exist simply because science cannot prove it to be true.

I like how you put that, it makes sense. Just because science hasn't proven something doesn't mean that it cannot exist. Einstein theorized the existence of gravatational waves many years ago. Only recently were these type waves proven to exist. Einstein was not wrong, simply because science was not yet at that point capable of verifying his belief. To me it is silly to say that God does not exist simply because science cannot prove it to be true.

 

This is a bad analogy, and the reason it is is bad proves the atheist point. Science has a predictive power and can be verified. Einstein theorized the existence of the waves. We knew they were there, if he was right. It was a matter of detecting them, verifying them. He predicted them, they were verified. That's how science works, ideas put forth, tested, measured, and rejected, accepted, or modified. Ideas put forth in science accept the burden of proof.

Religion and the notion of God works just a wee bit differently. The idea of God is put forward, and all the evidence in the world, or lack thereof, doesn't change a thing. Religion, and your post, tries to shift the burden of proof by saying "if you can't prove God doesn't exist, then he exists." Religion avoids the burden of proof. That's a major point in the "why won't God heal amputees" question.