Why does science always upstage God?

[Billy Bob]

(in no particular order)
Theists tell me, why is it that everything that God has provided, created and bestowed upon us, co-incidentally always seems to have
an alternate natural, more feasible explanation?

Why cannot science objectively find just one example out of trillions, where we can say, yeah, that thing right there, it shouldn't happen like that but it does, repeatedly.
That thing goes against what is logical or possible in our universe.
Example: People go back to Fatima, pray en masse for a sundance and on queue the Sun dances! For all the world to see?

Maybe it is the work of a God? They prayed to a God and a God responded... Makes logical sense.

But if God is going to act exactly like he doesn't exist in our universe, theists, why on earth do you even assume that he does?
What compels you to go against the grain of logic and common sense and dedicate your life to a particular myth from millions of other man made myths?

We just need one tiny example for God to show us something, but even that is asking too much for a non existent God.
Funny how everything in the world seems to make more sense when you take any extra unnecessary baggage out of the picture. (Occams)

Yeah, the world is a cruel place for the most part, but how is believing in something not real going to help anything or anyone.
Have we really reduced our species to relying on false hope to get by? We must have: 80% of the world does it.

(Even at the quantum level, weird shit happens, that isn't God! Why would the creator of the universe need to hide inside of atoms while we're all outside?
That's how our universe has been for 14 billion years, we're just discovering it now (last 100 years -through knowledge and technology.)

Theists say that? That’s not something that I have ever heard from them.
It is atheists who say that.
It is part of my arguments set:
=================================
When a scientific explanation is provided and well accepted by the scientific community, eventually, the knowledge reaches the general population and nearly everyone sets aside the old religious superstitious explanation.
The reverse never happens. There isn’t a single case where a scientific explanation has been replaced by scientists or the general public with a religious superstitious explanation.
=================================

“We just need one tiny example for God to show us something, but even that is asking too much for a non existent God.
Funny how everything in the world seems to make more sense when you take any extra unnecessary baggage out of the picture. (Occams)”

==Whether you are talking about aliens or gods (or alien-gods), they are both in the same category:
Some humans have trouble explaining some aspect of nature or human culture so they insert their god or alien into it. This is called the argument from incredulity.

For example:
Example 1:
Why do humans have various languages?
According to the Bible, humans had a single language. They were building the Tower of Babel. Then the jewish god got pissed and he “confused” their languages. So, the construction stopped.
There is no mention of biological evolution or language or cultural evolution in the Bible.

It sounds like the ancient jews did not know about evolution and had a gap in their knowledge, so they inserted their god into the gap (God of the gaps).

Example 2:
How did humans build Pyramids in Egypt?
Eric Von Danicken says that they are too stupid and it is impossible. Therefore, he inserts aliens into his knowledge gap.
Eric Von Danicken has written 3 books, I think. They are all about inserting aliens here and there and claiming ancient humans were dummies.

You mentioned Occam’s razor. This is an important concept in science. We tend to go for the more mundane explanation:
1. Some humans have mathematical skill
2. Some humans are thinkers
3. Some humans are inventive
4. They have the time and energy to do hard work for their king or gods.
5. Most importantly, we remove extraordinary claims, such as gods and aliens. We replace them with mundane explanations.

"Theists tell me, why is it that everything that God has provided, created and bestowed upon us, co-incidentally always seems to have an alternate natural, more feasible explanation?"

I'm aware of the alternatives and NONE makes sense for creation happening naturally. The first law of thermodynamics (1LT) and the 2LT shut down a natural explanation. Evidence points to nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. It must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This (the 1LT and 2LT) all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the doubters resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We know these laws and have NO doubts about them.

Then after creation there are a WHOLE lot of things science never got around such as the fine-tuning of the universe so life can exist on earth, the beginning of life, the designs of life forms, the information needing to be there before life started, the synchrony needed from the start, asexual and sexual reproduction, consciousness, logic, etc.

There's science and science fiction. Those that don't believe in a supernatural power resort to ignoring what we know and say we just don't know yet, or resort to science fiction. 

So the claim, "...co-incidentally always seems to have an alternate natural, more feasible explanation?" is rather ironic.