Nor is it science to presume that your observations prove that the non-God paradigm is correct. Seeing the sun rise and claiming a naturalistic cause is not science either.
If science doesn’t address the causes, as many claim, then atheistic scientists are in no better position to claim that science *proves* their world view and presumptions correct than it does to *prove* than a God believing scientists view that God is responsible for it. And it does not disprove God or God’s involvement.
The atheistic scientists apply two standards when debating. They think it acceptable to use assumptions about the cause of events when it doesn’t include God and think it unacceptable to use assumptions about events when it does include God. Double standards are unworthy of someone who claims to be an objective observer. It instantly demonstrates the fallacy of that claim.
Since science does not deal with the cause, assuming materialistic naturalism is a philosophical assumption no different than assuming God.
The observed evidence does NOT prove that the no-God paradigm is the correct one.
God can never be proved or disproved by science so science does not attempt to answer that question. It is folly for man to stop his research with "God did it".