Two points, PROOF has a very different meaning depending upon the discipline. You don't scientifically prove someone is guilty of a crime. If ten people testified that a man committed a crime, you'd vote guilty. If ten people testify to the existence of God, you'd call them ten nutcases.
That may be how a jury would vote... but it's not how they are SUPPOSED to vote... they are supposed to be presented with EVIDENCE, and base their "vote" on said evidence. If the evidence doesn't show guilt, then they are SUPPOSED to vote innocent even if their "gut" tells them otherwise.
...Take for example gravity which can be measured and experienced, but isn't understood completely as a force. If someone comes to you and say many people experience God. They see proof of God measured by the number of people that claim this experience. They say a preponderance of the evidence both in polls, historical, etc point to existence of God. They don't accept it. Take the same standard though and apply it to gravity and they will. Then ask them where gravity comes from and well.... it gets messy.
Holy crap !!! (but that's redundant ) ...are you really that ignorant???
Gravity IS understood... we DO understand how it works and what causes it. That understanding is NOT based on a preponderance of evidence, "well, lots of people experience it so it must be true." While said "evidence" is what led people to start thinking about it and exploring its causes, the scientific theory is based on demonstrable, measurable processes... well understood and explainable.