Based on observational proof, we can not prove God exists beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the person who believes in god, appears to sense something worth believing even if it can't be proven. They call that faith. After pondering this, there is way to satisfy both conditions. Let me give an example. Say I had a dream, the dream state can be proven based on brain waves. But say I had a very specific dream. There is no way to prove the details of this dream. It is not that the dream experience didn't happen. There is no proof simply because science is not advanced enough to record dream detail. Something real can appear to consciousnes (dream) yet science is technology blind If the blind man can't see the sun, does that mean it does not exist? My opinion, which is a compromise between science and religion, is religous experience uses the same mind scapes as dreams. Since the details of dreams can not be proven even if they are real observations, if a religious experience was to appear, this could not be proven using the best available technology. An objective scientist would say our machines are not good enough, so tell me about your dream. The subjective scientist would say, we have the best technology in the universe and if that can't see it, it is not there. Who is out of touch with reality, with respect to the spiritual dreamer, the objective and subjective scientist?