In some of my recent writing it may be thought that I am arguing for the existence of God. Far from it. What I am attempting to say is that proof of the existence of God is a matter that is outside the bounds of science to answer, in either the negative or the affirmative. Therefore, any belief in this area will need to depend upon other sources of knowledge. After all, science is not the only source of knowledge. We also have personal experiences and the experiences of other people to consider. For some, these experiences are convincing enough to believe in a God or some kind of transcendent reality. For others they are not. This is how it should be, individuals making up their own mind for themselves, free from the influence of self-appointed "authorities"!
I also disagree that because science cannot make a pronouncement about a certain topic that therefore that topic becomes off-limits and meaningless. On the contrary, I would say that many of the very things science cannot enlighten us about are the most meaningful things to consider. Often these are issues of meaning. In other cases they refer to experiences that we and others have that fall outside the bounds of the materialist paradigm or the ability of science to explain.