I have a problem with tieing "what is real (actual)" with "what can be proven". If you deny the existence of something until it can be demonstrated using the scientific method, you would have had to deny the existence of gravity until the law was written.

There is as difference between saying "We just don't know" and "that's not possible". And it is impossible logically to prove - and I mean PROVE - that something does not exist. Which creates a delicious little irony: People who "believe" in God could, by producing him, prove his existence; those who deny his existence can only take his non-existence on faith.

None of this is to say that you have to give creedence to every idea comes along. There are ways to make judgements on probabilities and improbabilities, and in most cases, the rules of our sciences hold true. But it is hubris of the worst sort to deny things that our rules can't (yet) prove. And the gods have a way of dealing with those who display that over-weening pride.

Just a few thought from your pal
Bart