Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?

This can be (loosely) translated into the following syllogism:P1: Faith is caused by God;
P2: Some people have faith;
C: Therefore, God exists.If P1 and P2 are true then the conclusion is also true. But it is not at all clear that P1 is true. For all I know, fear, ignorance and certain mushrooms are all very good candidates for the cause of faith. What I am saying is that the cause of faith is not a given. The syllogism then becomes:P1: Faith is caused by X;
P2: Some people have faith;
C: Therefore, X exists.Thus, we are none the wiser about the nature of X. That faith has a cause says absolutely nothing about the nature of the cause, which is what you nevertheless seem to imply. In other words: of course faith has a cause, but I don't think it is the cause that you would like it to be.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

You said that faith implies the existence of the cause of that faith. You think God is the cause of faith - you never said so, but it was clear from the context that you do. So, in effect you are saying that faith is evidence for God, forgetting that faith can also be induced by madness for instance. So you don't practice what you preach, because you do not show why only God can be the cause of faith. OK, show me the cause. Show me God. While you're at it, show me your methods too.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.