God Exists! does He?

In the recent past I have debated on this point with several of my friends and some of my students. There seems to be an increasing trend in people (younger ones particularly) claiming or announcing themselves to be atheists, in the name of science. The logic is "Science can explain everything and thus there is no place for God." Does Science explain everything? hmmm may not be everything but it atleast tries to, seems to be the response. They say that the scientists atleast acknowledge that they do not know everything! Hmmm but does that stand any merit in the debate, I am not sure. Anyway, what does the so called science do? can it go beyond the physical evidences or observable phenomenon? No, science seems restricted to those aspects of this creation that can be observed, tested, or verified. Anything beyond this realm is too obscure to be discussed by science and is termed pseudo-science, which is the pseudo one here?! So, the scientists seem to have drawn some boundaries, of what is observable, beyond which everything is pseudo/non-science; what is interesting is that only fraction of 1/4th of the creation seems to be observable and the more than a huge chunk of the 3/4ths remain mystery. For example, science may not be able to explain the meaning of LIFE, can it explain LOVE? Yes, again, it "tries" to. But, science is a self limiting approach; what can be explained seems to be limited by what can be observed, and what can be observed is limited by the instruments or senses.

All that science does is provide some probabilities of certain events; example, the possibility of a certain way of creation of this universe, the theory of evolution. But, its followers seem to take these theories (which are supposedly supported by strong evidences, which I would like to talk a little later) as TRUTH and everything else as falsehood or nonsense. What is interested is these TRUTHS are proved wrong time and again, and new "truths" are established! So, a "truth" that is falsifiable, which is the key criteria for the definition of science. All that the theist do is to provide an alternative possibility, one which is beyond the realm of observable phenomenon; which also means that falisifiability argument of the science is questioned. This becomes immediately objectionable to the scientists and the very idea seems to lead to rejection. Both are about "possibilities", but strangely theists seem more confident in their assertions (example, about the link between life, creation and God) while the scientists are still not sure and this uncertaintiy in claims seem to be the cornerstone of "openess" of science. Scientists have some theories and some evidences that seem to support their theories (or can it not be that data/evidence are fitted to support absurd theories?). Theists have their own set of evidences too, which are unacceptable to the scientists. But, do not the science have holes or missing links too?