I read something I found peculiar

[fr0d0]

Why does it have to be something to prove, and how would you suggest anyone went about doing that?

If there is no evidence there is no reason to believe it. It's not down to me to prove it. The burden of proof is on the one who claims it.

Intellectually the theory works. It holds up via internal proof. It's weakness is that at any point another theory might be presented that equally works. But even then this theory allows for that.

So the vast majority understanding it doesn't mean it is something? Maybe they mis-described it then. Maybe they're all wrong and you're right.

It doesn't matter how many believe it. Beliefs do not alter reality. All six billion people can believe it and only one person does not. That one person could be more right then all those billions. Numbers mean nothing. Facts do. Reality does not favour the masses. It favours nothing. Reality is reality and beliefs cannot change that no matter how many may believe in something.

Indeed. But if you, as a scientist observed a repeated pattern, you would make a summary and claim substantiation. How is that different to 99% of humankind exhibiting this phenomena?

The God solution answers the questions perfectly. I know of no other workable solutions. Do you? You choose to dismiss this solution and will naturally substitute other rationalisation for it. That would be like me consulting a cereal packet for answers on science. Not too helpful in reality, but it might make me happy.

For me, it's the complete opposite. Science answers questions nicely and religion is for those who desire comfort.
Science offers workable solutions whilst religion does not. It only raises more questions.

Yours isn't an opposite position. To be opposite you'd have to dismiss faith _and_ science. I fully embrace science and faith.