The thing that's overlooked about the scientific method is that science ALWAYS deals in probabilities/statistical analysis, with a basic understanding amongst scientists that we NEVER have absolutes when interacting with the physical world: NEVER. Thus science deals in the techniques of statistical analysis: confidence intervals, standard deviations (from the mean), significant figures, etc. Science uses certain agreed-upon standards to say, "this much would be enough to prove/show/indicate a correlation exists", where correlation is expressed as a percentile. You NEVER get 100%, when you're dealing with real-life physical matter.
As hinted at earlier, "proof" is a term from mathematics, where you CAN show that a theorem makes "perfect" sense if it can be assembled in a sequential manner, with assumptions arranged in a logically-harmonious fashion in order to demonstrate some idea. THAT'S how mathematicians speak of when saying they can prove something, but it can never translate into physical reality without some minor tolerances of error, since it's an idea, a series of thoughts, only: it's a thought experiment, existing only on paper and in the mind.
I said earlier that courts use different standards for what constitutes proof, depending on the alleged crime: reasonable person, beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond a preponderance of the evidence, etc. The differences are often subtle, and a matter of opinion: hence, different people hearing the same evidence will reach a different verdict. However, a lack of 100% airtight incontrovertible proof is always lacking, as you cannot rule out the rare "black swan" event as a possibility. Does this lack of certainty mean we let everyone who's accused of a crime go free, since there's a minute possibility that we MIGHT be wrong? Of course not....
Ironic that some people shy away from stating, or are are paralyzed from claiming they're 'atheists', although they're 99.999% sure there is no Abrahamic God for many different reasons; so they cling onto a title of 'agnostic' out of concern for the 0.001% chance they MAY be wrong (and more likely for the fear of being seen as arrogant or being biased, as if biased is ALWAYS a negative).
Like I said it before, it would literally take closed-head trauma/TBI, forgetting everything I've learned in science and being left a dribbling fool, in order to believe in God; that's how convinced I am.
Fact is, though, I don't want others to take MY word for it: there are no shortcuts here, so YOU'VE got to do the homework, the reading, the thinking. That's half the fun! At least it was for ME: I've always been the one who likes to think for myself, vs being fed pre-digested ideas, where the thinking has been done for me...
