My position has always been that asking for proof of the existence or nonexistence of God is the wrong question. The question is what would make the existence of gods plausible, given what we know about the universe. The particular god that monotheists call "God" is no more plausible than other gods. They are all supernatural intelligent beings that we imagine to have absolute voluntary control over some aspect of reality, so they can all perform miracles. There is no reason why any particular miracle should be taken as evidence of the existence of the monotheist's "God". And any alleged miracle could not be proven to violate natural laws of physics, since the alternative is always to revise the laws of physics to treat the phenomenon as natural. It would be more plausible to see it as an activity by an advanced civilization than a supernatural being.
It is easy to see why people invented gods to explain what they could not otherwise explain in nature. Animism--attributing mental states and volition to inanimate objects--seems plausible to beings that can move their own bodies volitionally. Observable physical forces can be interpreted as a kind of volition caused by mental activity. Gods can manipulate reality in the same way that we manipulate our bodies. They are just like ourselves in that respect. They are idealized people. It's just that we now have better alternative ways of explaining natural phenomena. Hence the rivalry between religion and science as alternative ways to explain the behavior of things that don't have brains. We know that physical brains explain our volition, sensations, and mental states. Gods don't have brains, so it is a hard sell to take them seriously as plausible thinking beings. Most of the time, they aren't even imagined to have physical bodies, and it is easy to see why organisms with mobile physical bodies would evolve brains to move their bodies around with. Sessile organisms don't have brains, because they don't have a need to go anywhere.