This is exactly the point, evidence gathering, objective and rigorous testing and experimentation, and conceiving of ways to rigorously falsify ideas simply works, and along with all the other ways of verification makes science the most reliable method we have for objectively understanding reality.
So when it either doesn’t support beliefs that people are emotionally invested in, or even falsifies them, we see this sort of desperate bargaining in the form of poorly reasoned rationalisations.
For example the claim that “just because science can’t evidence a deity, does not mean no deity exists”, and while this is true, it would be just as true for mermaids, unicorns, garden fairies et al. It may not demonstrate they don’t exist, but then that’s not my criteria for disbelief, which is an absence of sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence. Now if that is not @Druso’s criteria for disbelief, then what is, one wonders? This might help us move things along, along with his reason for believing a deity exists or is possible, as I asked already, which deity does he believe exists, and why?