Why don't you disagree with what I wrote instead of your moronic interpretation of what I wrote?
You say that science "doesn't claim that it has" explained the origin of the universe. That is my exact point. Science and Religion are not "100% incompatible" as the source post of this sub-thread claims.
So your point is that science doesn't explain what it doesn't claim to explain, but that somehow this means that religion automatically does explain it? Citation needed.
The very bedrock of science is nothing but pure faith.
Wrong. The very bedrock of science is that in order for claims to be verifiable, they must be observable and repeatable under controlled conditions so as to eliminate any need for faith.
Science does not preclude this statement:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Science makes no claims on this statement other than that beyond very poorly defined terms (define which god you mean here for a start, and what properties it embodies), that it does not have any testable properties that would allow us to verify or falsify the claim. Beyond that, you have the choice of either believing the statement based on faith alone, choosing not to believe the statement (as in, you neither believe the statement is true or false) due to lack of evidence, or choose to actively disbelieve the statement (as in, you believe the statement is false) presumably based on lack of evidence again. The scientific method in similar circumstances would generally take the second position unless new evidence arises that can be tested.
Additionally, the scientific method is also pure faith. The faith is that things are repeatable.
This is not faith. If one requires that a phenomenon be repeatable so that it can be observed under controlled conditions before accepting that it could exist or occur, is basically the opposite of faith. This is based on observations thus far that any occurrence in the natural world can be replicated under the right conditions. So of course, you can say that there are phenomenon that, by their very nature, only occur once in the entire universe, and then never repeat. Of course, this is nice speculation, and the claim by definition cannot be tested by science, but then again, if these phenomenon can only occur once without repetition, then they no longer have any bearing on our universe and thus exist outside of any practical application of intellectual persuit. Science is only interested in finding out about things that will have some application to our existence, and events that will never occur again and cannot be proven to ever have occurred before (this condition excludes the big bang) fall outside this category. It helps that so far we have not encountered anything (to the best of our knowledge) that would fall into this category, but I'm sure you'd dispute that point.
Anything that you just have to accept because you cannot apply the scientific method, is an exercise in faith.
Again, this is not faith. The application of the scientific method as a means to determining the fundamental nature of any known aspect of our natural universe has thus far, through countless observations, been demonstrated to be the single best method. This is after science got to questions that for centuries, philosophers, preachers, and mystics had claimed to have the answers to, but have long since been shown to be just flat out wrong about. So this belief is based on countless piles and piles of evidence, built on piles and piles of more evidence. The very fact that you are typing your post at all, and that I am able to see it are yet more testaments to the effectiveness of the scientific method.
When you wrote:
"And no faith is needed, because the four forces exist."
You may as well have written:
"God made the fundamental forces."
No, occam's razor would exclude you going that further step. Attempting to shoe-horn a god into that claim about the existence of the forces merely begs a lot of questions that you then can't answer; see my previous statement about precisely defining god, which god you're talking about, is this Old Testament God, New Testament God, Southern Baptist, or Anglican interpretation, Jewish, Muslim, or perhaps one of the Hindu incarnations...Then I might ask how you determine precisely which of these gods is the valid one to be talking about...And then we get to the even more unanswerable questions of where you claim this god came from, to which I'm guessing you'll either say "first uncaused cause" or "self created" or some other claim to which I would merely ask why the same couldn't be applied to the forces themselves and leaving the god claim out of it to begin with?
The point of science and religion isn't to say "something is", it's to explain why. Until you can explain why, then it might as well be magic.
First you are assigning the wrong purpose to science, and then you are asking the wrong question. Or rather, you are asking "why", but you are asking the wrong type of "why". You're looking for a why that implies intention, whereby you are ascribing a conscious effort to the existence of things with some sort of underlying purpose. But the more practical type of "why" to ask is more of a "how" and gets at how we can harness the underlying forces at work in this universe to the betterment of mankind.
Now bear in mind, that in spite of all the above, I'm not actually claiming there is no god (for any given definition of god). I'm merely saying that any of those questions are irrelevant to science, and that your attempts to conflate the two, or render science irrelevant for not making such claims is disingenuous at best. Anyway, enjoy your internet and electricity, the scientific method will not condemn you to candle-light and stone-carvings for not believing in it.