I didn't say science says "God is impossible." I said science says God is outside of its purview. You happen to agree. I am asking how you and/or science are qualified to make such an assertion. If science is not competent to make statements regarding God, then how can it with competence state that God is outside of its purview?
We can definitively state that God is outside the purview of science because that's what we define science to mean. Similarly, we define the trade of "plumbing" or "carpentry" in such a way that God is outside the purview of plumbers qua plumbers. Why don't you go yell at some plumbers for not investigating God as the source of clogs and leaks for a change?
"I am asking how you and/or science are qualified to make such an assertion. If science is not competent to make statements regarding God, then how can it with competence state that God is outside of its purview?"
Because, as YOU have already said, there is no way to make a weighted choice between the statements *Everything can be explainable by God* and *Everything can be explainable without God*. If you can't make a weighted choice, you can't say one is a better choice than the other. You are stuck. That is where science is; it's stuck because there simply is no way to decide if God does or doesn't exist. As YOU have already agreed.
"You misrepresent, or misunderstand what I've said."
No, you misrepresent and misunderstand what YOU have said.
"I accept two types of science as having validity, neither of which operate under falsifiable assumptions. Furthermore I made clear that it is incumbent upon every observer to make a choice based upon those two, and gave the options."
But you said there was NO WAY TO CHOOSE between the two that wasn't better than the other. The proper stance is then agnosticism regarding this question. Theism and atheism are never scientific stances. Not yet anyway; if more info is produced to allow one to make a weighted choice, this may change.