This is something that encompasses both physicists and metaphysicians.
Over the last centuries we have had people trying to prove God exists. And since you cannot prove that God exists, then many people have taken up the belief that God doesn't exist, and think that they are superior because they are being logical, scientific.
Which is sad, because the arguments that atheists use are neither logical, nor scientific. However, from our currently VERY LIMITED Modern Materialistic Science, view point, they do sound logical and scientific.
But think about things from where we have been. We used to believe that diseases were caused by evil spirits. And now we know about microbes, germs and viruses. So, our entire paradigm shifted.
And now we know about radio waves, and can make tools that can see/sense them.
And ultraviolet and infrared light. We've made tools to see them. And have learned that animals do not see in the same spectrums as us.
Scientists really stand firm on being able to see something before they call it real. Even with huge piles of evidence. They can't see it, so they cannot test it, so it is not real, not proveable, and so "logically" must be discarded.
It is not logical
People today like to parrot the line, "correlation does not equal causation". Thinking that they are being logical and sounding smart. However, it is not logical.
There are things like ice cream sales and shark attacks, that are highly correlated, but are not causally linked. However, they are linked by one order difference. They both occur in the summer when people are more likely to eat ice cream and more likely to swim in the ocean.
So, instead of saying, "you can't prove it", we really should be saying, "This is a good place to start looking, and what are the things that are closely related to each?"
Unfortunately, the people causing the problem, are the ones who shout (or cause to be posted all over the media) "correlation does not equal causation." And usually our problem in finding the connection is that there are things happening that we do not know about.
Like "Vaccines cause autism". However, we do know that too many heavy metals put into the body causes autism. And Vaccines have WAY too many heavy metals in them. And we also know that a gut cleanse can often end autism for someone who wasn't already autistic. Soooo many moving pieces, but we have people saying that it is logical to not look in the most obvious places.
We do not know what we do not know.
What if i told you that there was colors in between the double rainbows?
And then, what if i tried to describe these new colors of the rainbow.
What do you say to this? Modern Scientists tells these people "Prove it!"
Is this the best approach? Especially knowing about the microbe thing, and the EM thing.
Modern Materialistic Scientists go around telling everyone that they are wrong, and illogical. When, they are only ahead of their time. Everyone accepts that microbes exist now.
There are so many things that are going to open up to us in the near future (there are kids that see the other colors of the rainbow already) that are squarely in the realm of trying to tell a blind man about sight, or worse, telling a blind or color-blind person about color.
The problem for meta-physicians here, is that we are about to see/feel/sense a LOT more of the universe. We are going from a 4D world, to a many dimensional world. And this will mean that there are a lot more connections to source. Further we will see how physics and metaphysics are a continuum.
So much more reality is going to be opened up to us.
What if reality didn't stay fixed anymore?
What if scientists went out to test the reality of a tree. They say that it exists because we can all see it, and we can all touch it. So, therefore it is real (and God is not). What happens if the scientists walk over to the tree, and it is not there. They cannot see it or touch it?
Before anyone says that this cannot happen, it already does. We just chalk it up to bad memory.
Things in the quantum world are well known for not being there when looked for a second time.
And what about the Mandala Effects? Scientists are saying that this is all because of bad memory, but if it was a faulty memory, you would get all kinds of answers, not one, other, specific answer. "Luke, I am your father"
We are going to be dealing with a lot more of this kind of stuff. Where, the tree is there, if we look at it in the old way, but not there when we shift our focus to other dimensions. Or, more to the point, we find the tree in multiple dimension. The same tree, but not the same tree. So many similarities that you feel they are the same, but one grows apples, and the other cherries.
This is the world we are going to be stepping into.
So much of what we are going to awaken to is like trying to explain sight to a blind man, or color to a color-blind person. (and some that are like trying to explain color to a blind person)
We don't have the vocabulary. There isn't anything "like" it to sorta explain it to someone.
We have had all kinds of problems when a highly spiritual person has gone and met God, and tries to come back and tell us about his experiences. Sadly, we say that such people are insane. Although these people were trying to help the rest of the people to be able to see/experience God too.
We do not have a term, or logic for, what happens to a LOT of people, but not to all of us, so it is "not proof". Things like NDE, or seeing angels are very well documented. Have happened to many people, and they all describe something very similar except a few which describe something (random. like 9 out of 10 say "A", and the other 1, say every other letter, seemingly at random.)
These things should not be discounted by science. This is a very bad disservice to anyone who is moving outside of the realm of "normal" (decided on by "scientists") I am sure that "scientists" will shout, until they are blue in the face, that there are only colors from red to violet, while many children talk about the next color bands.
(Many scientists believe that if there are more colors, they would be add to either side, but this is not true. Where on the EM spectrum is magenta? It is a mixture of red and violet. Sooooo, then it is green? (equal distance between red and violet) It is not, and we can clear see the difference between magenta and green. The thing is the color magenta is created in our minds from the stimulation of various rods and cones. Now, imagine that you had 4 types instead of 3 as we have had. What colors would you see?)
Dear scientists, please do not yell at the children when they start drawing rainbows with 10 color bands instead of 7.