Ok, if science has proved religion wrong every time, list every time, or we can't really accept your statement as true can we?
If you say, "I have to breath every moment of my life to live", is it any less true if you can't recall
every last moment you've lived?
Not saying I agree with what he said, but your defense is equally faulty.
The fact is, I can't prove God's (or any god's) existence just as much as you can't prove to me that you exist. Sure I may be communicating with you, but how do I know I'm not dreaming right now? How do I know that there are actually atoms, or even the space to make them up? And that's the beauty of it. You can't know that there is anything other than yourself. All you really have to go on is belief. You don't know if you have a hand, but you believe you do. It's the same with religion. You don't know in a sense that can be written out logically or proven scientifically, but you still believe, and belief is just as powerful as knowledge.
Scientists are guilty of believing something they don't know exists as well. Unless I've been out of the loop, they are still searching for the Higgson-Boggs particle... what if they never can prove or disprove it's existence? What if they've reached a complete dead end. Of course they may never know they reached a dead end. But knowing that with current technology it can't be proven or disproven, will they support one side over the other? The answer is no. They would say "at this moment, we aren't capable of knowing."
So isn't it feasible that "at this moment, we aren't capable of knowing" is true of religion too? Even if it is at a dead end epistemically?
No, because you're comparing two very different things.
In your example of religion, you're suggesting a very extreme skepticism (pretty much Kantian Idealism). In this case, nothing can be proven because only mental abstractions can be known with absolute certainty. In your second paragraph you're asking for proof, which means that you can no longer embrace that skepticism.
Science has
reasons it
postulates things. They are looking for the Higgs boson because it is the only unknown in an equation that spans more than a page in length and unifies nearly all of standard particle physics. It's not like they are arbitrarily looking around space hoping to find an answer.
This is another vital flaw in your comparison: "... what if they never can prove or disprove it's existence?"
In the case of religion, short of some global miracle and/or some higher being exposing itself to everyone on the planet at the same time, you're correct to say you can
never know for sure about the existence of a higher being.
In the case of science, by definition, something will always be able to be proven or disproven, with the only condition being we have the adequate technology for it. This is because science does not deal in pure conjecture. You can't just say "I think X exists because I
feel it." To be taken seriously, you have to say something like "Due to a previous experiment, I have reason to think X exists. Further, we may test for X's existence by performing experiment Y." For example, the question of whether or not the Higgs boson exists can be answered when CERN's large hadron collider becomes fully operational. Nevertheless, it is a question we
can answer in the future, unlike the question religion poses.
