As is proving that there is a God... So where does it end?
No. Proving that something does exist
or is real
what science is about. Through science, we can prove that the dodo bird once existed. We have drawings. We have fossils. We have first hand accounts of their behavior. We have specimens. Hell, we might even have DNA of them. The one time existence of the dodo is not up for debate. This is how science works.
As to the existence of God or the supernatural, the evidence is far more scarce. That doesn't mean that God or the supernatural don't exist, but that from a strict scientific standpoint, that it isn't proven
. But just because something isn't proven doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
As far as proving the existence of the supernatural, well you have to consider an old maxim in science: the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to prove its existence. So, the claims as to what God can do are quite extraordinary: he can create life instantly, bring back the dead, and apparently ignore some or all of the laws of physics. We'd need a hell of a lot of proof before most scientists would accept the existence of God. As for proof or evidence, all we really have are some supposed miracles that have happened from time to time, and some people that think that they've seen God and/or had him communicate to them or through them, often via dreams or possession. Most of the miracles weren't or couldn't be verified by science. Most of the cases of people claiming to have knowledge of God through some sort of supernatural means have also failed to yield evidence of the supernatural. There's a large volume of prophesies that have not come true, and a volume of prophesies that some claim have come true, but were so vaguely written originally as to make us wonder if it was just wishful thinking on the part of those that claim it came true. There are a rare few prophesies that were clearly written that seem to have come true, but some of those have been shown to have been written after the supposed prophesy occurred. There's almost no evidence in the realm of proving the supernatural that has been accepted as valid proof by scientists. Therefore if one wants to believe in God or the supernatural, they must primarily rely on faith that it exists. Although they might have had direct experiences that seems to point to the existence of the supernatural, in most cases, what they experienced could not be considered direct proof, and even if it could be, in most cases it wasn't studied and subjected to scientific scrutiny.
For instance, I've directly experienced things that lead me to the inescapable conclusion that the supernatural exists. It may very well be that everything that I've experienced has a mundane explanation, but if so, reality is a lot weirder than we give it credit for. But I can't prove anything
by my experiences. Hell, I can't even prove that they really happened, and aren't false memories or a short term psychotic break on my part. No scientist would accept my "evidence", because it's all just memory; there were no recordings of any sort that occurred to even prove that events took place as I remember them, much less anything else. Hell, you can't even prove anything by the time I magicked my girlfriend's car into starting despite the fact that it had a dead battery, or two times I've made it rain - all of those could have just been coincidence. And I'll tell you this - I probably couldn't replicate those results on demand, and that automagically means that it wasn't science. Science can be duplicated. Science gives consistent results. Magick doesn't. Or perhaps magick does give consistent results, but we're unable to sense one or more necessary components of it. For instance, maybe a wish for rain will always
work, if you've attracted the right kind of spirits to go make the weather change, and they want to help - but if we can't see those spirits, well from our vantage, from the world of science, every attempt at using magick to shape the world around us looks like a crap shoot.