Here are a few examples:
1-Science cannot prove that you love someone.
2-Science cannot prove that something is beautiful.
3-Science cannot prove that something is funny.
4-Science cannot prove that you miss someone.
5-Science cannot prove that something is noble or inspirational.
6-Science cannot prove why something makes you sad.
7-Science cannot prove what makes us happy.
There are lots of things that we believe in life that science cannot adequately explain. Clearly we do not say to our loved ones, "I don't love you because love can't be proven."
So it's probably a bad idea to disbelieve in God just because we lack air-tight scientific proof of His existence.
This is only true in cases where the terms haven't been well-defined. The fact is, things such as "beautiful" and "love" ARE becoming well-defined as technology improves because we can extract coherent definitions from the environment even though people have a hard time describing them. The results have been very good. Mathematics has long held that it was possible to derive process definition in theory, even if people can't describe the process, based on the results. Now that fact and capability is catching up with the theory, this is turning out to be as true as many theorists believed. I find it intriguing that computers are able to create real and useful definitions for things that humans have poor facilities for expressing.
1-Science cannot prove that you love someone.
2-Science cannot prove that something is beautiful.
3-Science cannot prove that something is funny.
4-Science cannot prove that you miss someone.
5-Science cannot prove that something is noble or inspirational.
6-Science cannot prove why something makes you sad.
7-Science cannot prove what makes us happy.
I think this is a perfect intuitive approach and can make a great beachhead against materialistic reductionism.
You could also ask, "How much does love weigh?" Or "What color are your thoughts?" Or "How big is the beauty of a rose?" All of these questions are logically fallacious "category errors." In these examples, qualities of material things are ascribed to non-material or spiritual things.