You take the belief in God on faith and faith alone.
No, actually, that's not true. Faith in God is extremely logical once one gets to know a bit about creation itself.
There is no scientific evidence that God exists.
That depends on what you mean by 'scientific evidence.' If you are referring to repeatable experiments, then you are right, and it must be that way. For if God could be subjected to a repeatable experiment, then He would not be God, would He? We would be sovereign over Him, and that would make us greater. That could not possibly be if God, as we are aware of Him, exists.
However if you mean by 'scientific evidence' that there is no physical, discernible evidence that God exists, you are quite wrong. Consider what we find under a microscope. Every time we examine something man-made under a microscope, we find more and more imperfections the higher the resolution. That is exactly the opposite of what we find when we look at a butterfly wing, or a cell, or anything else existing in nature. The higher the resolution, the more perfection we see.
Time, accidents, and natural selection cannot account for what we see in creation. Genetics cannot explain what we see in creation. All science can do is use man's mind to explore what already is. Much of the time we seem to be examining the dust and ignoring the mountain.
Consider: we look at a painting of a rose and know for sure there is an artist behind that painting; it was not the result of spilled paint. Then there are those who look at the infinitely more complex actual rose and declare it an accident of nature.
That takes FAR more faith than coming to the logical conclusion of a Creator!