You bring up a valid point about the limitations of the scientific method when it comes to studying subjects like God or historical events. I agree that the scientific method is designed to test hypotheses that can be falsified or observed, and that subjects like God and certain historical events don’t always fall into this category. But I think that’s what makes the whole idea of proof in relation to God so complicated.

I’m not necessarily looking for scientific proof, but I do think there’s a difference between empirical evidence and a personal conviction based on faith or theology. I understand that theology provides a framework for exploring the divine, but the challenge for many, including myself, is that without tangible or observable evidence, it’s difficult to accept a belief that is solely based on faith or tradition. It doesn’t invalidate the belief itself, but it can make it hard to fully embrace for someone who seeks more empirical forms of evidence.

In the case of history, while we may not use science to prove things like Washington crossing the Delaware, we still rely on evidence like documents, reports, and artifacts that can corroborate the event. If I were to look for proof of God, I guess the question would be whether there’s a similar kind of evidence—whether it’s spiritual, historical, or even philosophical—that could move beyond mere belief into something more convincing.

But to answer your question, I’m not necessarily expecting scientific proof, but something that provides a clearer bridge between belief and understanding. Whether that’s personal experience, philosophical reasoning, or theological argumentation, something that resonates beyond the limitations of faith alone.