There were other, more logical arguments from others, but the way that the meme was worded left a lot of room for imprecision. For example, what was meant by "religion", or for that matter "science"? There are a lot of things about religion that you have to "take on faith", i.e., there is no way to prove or disprove them. Science, on the other hand, is all about proving things, even though there's a great number of things that cannot be proven (yet), but scientists have put forth their best estimate, based on available observations. Yet "science" is not a thing, it's not a belief, it's a process for determining how things are. The thing about science is that its conclusions change in the face of new evidence. While it does take people, i.e. scientists, to work out the truth, the whole goal is to discover how things are, based ultimately on observations. The observations lead to predictions, which, if they turn out to be correct, lead to a theory of the way things are. Can a scientist draw the wrong conclusions from the evidence? Do scientists disagree among themselves as to what the underlying truth is? Yes and yes. But that underlying truth is true is what it is no matter who believes it.
Religion, in all it's myriad forms, is also in some way an attempt to explain why things are the way they are. Unlike science, religion usually doesn't change its doctrines in the light of new evidence, but doubles down on its original explanations and attempts to make the observable facts fit the preconceived doctrine. While a true believer may insist that the existence of their god is an objective fact, in reality there is no objective test to verify the existence of any god. This would be fine if believers would be content to act on their faith, to live according to the ethical tenets allegedly handed down by their god, privately. However, many religious people insist on requiring everyone to adhere to their interpretation of their religion, and making religious texts the law of the land. Such people set out to prove scientifically that their religion is true, or at least indicate how scientific theories are not inconsistent with their religion.
Before I go on, let me make clear that I have no problem with people basing their lives on their religion. There's a lot of good in most "holy" books, and great ethical and moral guidelines and examples of how to live a good life. I have a problem when they try to force their beliefs on the rest of us, or suggest that those who disbelieve are stupid for not believing. I look askance at those who act ethically only because a god allegedly told them to act ethically, or due to fear of divine wrath, rather than because it's the right thing to do.
During my discussion with the aforementioned religious guy on Facebook, I was treated to all manner of attempted debunking of my points as well as attempts to "prove scientifically" that the Bible, and therefore Christianity, is true. I had made a statement that if all the adherents of a religion died and all their literature disappeared, then that religion would cease to exist. That seems pretty straightforward, but he repeatedly challenged me to prove my point, which he insisted was unscientific and without evidence. Of course it's without evidence! It hasn't happened! It's a hypothetical situation that's self-explanatory. It's axiomatic: if there's no one left who believes in a religion's tenets, and all evidence of their existence is gone, in what sense would that religion still exist? And that's the difference between science and religion in the context of objective existence: what we know about the world due to science is still true, and could still be proved to be true, if every scientist and everything written about their discoveries were to disappear from the face of the earth. It might take a while for anyone to figure it out again, but it would not be any less true. Religious belief does not exist independently of the believers. Believers might believe that it does, but they can't prove it.
Many believers, unsatisfied with living a moral life according to the teachings of the faith's profits, want to find physical proof that their holy books are factual accounts. (It's part of their mission to impose their "truth" on the rest of us) They have gone about this in a variety of ways.
One method is by "logical" argument. My discussion opponent last week brought up Aquinas. Aquinas' first proof stated that since we can see things changing all around us, and that each change was initiated by something else, and that chain of causation can't be infinitely long, there must be something that causes change without changing itself. According to Aquinas, this everyone understands to be God. His second proof is similar. In this proof, he observes that everything has a cause, and, like the first proof, he states that the chain of causation cannot be infinitely long. He concludes that there must be a "first cause" that was not caused by anything else. Again, like the first proof, he assumes that everyone understands that this is God. What is generally not understood about Aquinas’ “proofs” are not only not proofs, but he did not intend them to be viewed as such. Aquinas believed not only that the existence and attributes of God were not self evident, but were beyond mankind’s ability to understand. They were, on the other hand, a way to explain God “in layman’s terms”, possibly as much to himself as to anyone else. Think of a much simpler explanation (which is probably apocryphal) - St. Patrick’s explanation of The Trinity by comparing it to a three leaf clover. The analogy didn’t prove anything, but assisted in understanding. Most attempts at “logical” proofs for God are like this: they’re less evidence-based and more like a way for a believer to convince himself, and is unlikely to convince a skeptic. Check out this link for a list of various "proofs" for God's existence. A further weakness in any "proof" is that they generally "prove" the existence of a generic creator entity. Even assuming that there must be a creator to have a creation, a first cause in order to have any effects, there is nothing to require that the creator is specifically your version.
Those who hold to the belief that something must have created everything, or at least set in motion, subscribe to the corollary that although everything else had to have a precursor, somehow God was exempt. That God did not need to be created, that he always existed. But once you postulate that there exists something (or someone) that always existed, what prevents there from being other somethings that always existed? There are strains of theoretical physics that theorize a universe that did not have a moment of creation.
Proofs based on archeology have become pretty popular. They’re also incredibly feeble. No one is suggesting that none of the people and places mentioned in The Bible existed. It can be confirmed that there was a Roman official named Pontius Pilate around the beginning of the Common Era. There is an inscription on a monument dating around 900 B.C. referring to "The House of David". Some of the cities mentioned in the Old Testament have been dug up. But archeology minded believers will latch on to any discovery that confirms that a place or a person existed as if that confirms everything in The Bible. Never mind all the archeology that disproves parts of The Bible, or historical records that contradict the biblical ones. Those believers will insist are wrong. Why? Because they contradict The Bible. Even if every person in The Bible can be verified to have existed, that does not confirm that the supernatural events or entities therein are real. Anyone can write a book that is set in historically verified milieus. Back in my late teens I read James Michener's book, "Centennial" as well James Clavell's "Shogun". Both made use of real people, events and locations out of history. But all of the main characters in both books were fictional and the stories were made up as well. I can't claim that the family tree in "Centennial" is accurate just because there really is a state called Colorado or a tribe called the Cheyenne. Or that the adventures of Blackthorne actually happened just because Shoguns were a real thing in 16th century Japan. To cite a more ridiculous example: Spider-Man isn't real just because I happen to know from being there that Forest Hills, Queens is a real place.
The difference between science and religion is that science isn't attempting to explain the world by spinning plausible (for a certain value of plausible) but unprovable stories. Science is about constructing a framework that helps us understand the nuts and bolts, the "what" and the "how". That framework is looking at the world and making predictions based on what can be seen and adjusting those predictions based on ongoing observations. Religion is based on the construction of a framework more on how we want things to be, rather than how they necessarily are. Religion at its best is about hope, it's about how to live peaceably in the society of others, how to treat others, how to be the best person that it's possible to be. It's about building a philosophy that enables us to do all those things. If it helps someone to believe that all that is the plan of some invisible and objectively undetectable entity in order to be a good person, then so it is. But the best of religion doesn't require a god, it only requires that one acts in a godly way.
