Thank you for the reply. I didnt really expect much during everyone’s Christmas break.
You have answered my question. The basic purpose of the question was in regard to the ever present God/science-vs-god debate. Which, of course, adds another level to the problem with the definition of science.
Science, is limited to the observable, measurable and repeatable. That is, only the natural can be studied by science. Science, then, being the search for the truth about the universe. But it seems that modern science has turned the definition around, contorting it to “only the natural can be studied by science and proven science is truth thus only the natural can be true (or for the sake of a logic problem …all truth is natural).” This causes a distribution problem in the logic. Reasoning also poses a problem because this definition leaves out anything that is unnatural or supernatural. it also seems to lead to the idea that anything not proven true is then necessarily false and that all unnatural and supernatural then does not exist.
So one person says that he believes something does exist whose existence cannot be naturally/scientifically proven and then uses it to explain something else. The other person says that the first person is, in fact, wrong because of the fact that the assumed existence of that thing cannot be proven true. The first person is not proven true by the inability of his assumption to be proven false. But the second person is not able to prove the first wrong by the inability of the assumption of first to be proven true. This is my context for using the word belief. A belief being, not only something that has not been proven, such as fairies under your garden, but also something that cannot be proven such as invisible fairies. Unprovability does not necessitate either truth or falsehood.
So back to the original sentence I had a question on. Why would it be a fallacy to believe something that has no natural evidence, while admitting that it cannot be scientifically proven true? and Is it also a fallacy then to limit truth to those things that are natural when truth is a characteristic whether proven or not?
I hope that all made sense. If my wording etc. did not make sense, feel free to look at the core of what I am talking about where you think I am missing something rather than the specific questions.
perhaps I am conflating truth with logic too much?