It's actually pretty interesting to read your posts because they're like Fermi questions
(questions that seemed impossible to answer because of lack of information, but could be estimated by order-of-magnitude calculations). By using subjective reasoning organized by a standard-defying grammatical style, you've made your points incredibly hard to understand even after approximating the correct structural syntax. However, with a little bit of hard work and some detailed analysis, I believe that I have translated most of your post into English, and will attempt to reply to that.
(This is just a fun way of saying that the more vague your point is, the more important it is to be grammatically correct, so in the future please spend more time on your grammar).
At any rate, I've organized your reply, paragraph by paragraph, into a "p implies q" type post, so if I missed the boat it should be pretty easy to spot.
1. Scientists cannot prove that God exists, therefore it is accepted in the scientific community that God does not exist.
2. There is no scientific definition for God, therefore God's influence cannot be measured/explained.
3. With the appropriate definition of God, his influence can be explained. Based on my definition (not given), his influence is to give some things the power to act according to their beliefs.
4. Faith is action based on belief, with no doubt of the outcome. (no need for change here)
5. I have observed the entity that fits my definition of God, therefore he exists.
6. God cannot be proved or disproved to exist, therefore he might exist.
7. God might exist, therefore the scientific community should officially announce that he might exist, and God should be taught in classrooms.
And below is my retort. Enjoy!
1. The hypothesis is true, but the conclusion isn't. It cannot yet be shown empirically that God does or does not exist, so it should not be regarded as a scientific subject.
2. Though the conclusion doesn't follow from the hypothesis, both statements are true.
3. I am unable to assess first statement without your definition. The brain allows people to act according to their beliefs, so if God (definition not given) is your brain, then I agree.
4. According to the popular definition of faith, it is an abstract concept (i.e. intangible) rather than an action, and absolute certainty is not implied.
5. Too easy...I'll let this one go.
6. Yes!
7. Er...good news! Even Richard Dawkins would assert that God might exist, and God is taught in classrooms. In fact, I took a class in college on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
™ Version 4.2
