I agree with all the commenters who say the "reasoning" here is incoherent.

Regarding proof - philosophers (with a few unfortunate exceptions) have understood for several thousand years there is no proof for God.

unfortunately nowadays "science" has become the basis of what we consider to be knowledge, so people resort to all kinds of unscientific scientific proofs for God AND for the idea of the universe as purely physical (ie, dead and unconscious)

To see that science is inappropriate for EITHER of these ideas, consider this:

One of the first things that Galileo, Kepler, Bacon and others did at the birth of modern science is to withdraw qualia - the actual experience of the universe - from scientific consideration. This was a stroke of genius - as it allowed scientists to pursue their investigations without interference from the church.

Unfortunately many became victims of a kind of confidence game in the late 19th century. Having removed qualia (qualities of color, sound, subjective experience of any kind, and the very existence of consciousness) from consideration, some began to declare the universe has no qualia; experience is merely a projection of the human brain,

If you ONLY accept scientific evidence (which is basically in the form of abstract purely numerical relationships) there is no evidence that the universe we experience even exists.

Remind people of that the next time they say there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.

There is no purely numerical, abstract, non-qualia, non experiential evidence for the existence of anything.

if you can sift through this, I just laid out a proof for the idea that physicalism - the belief of dogmatic faith based anti-scientists like Dawkins, de Grasse Tyson, Crick and others, - is a purely nihilistic, meaningless and ultimately incoherent faith.