I'll remind you once again, the point of the OP was not to answer the question, it was to examine the context and understand the question from a more appropriate context. I readily admit the question isn't answered, it can't be answered, that is why it continues to be argued. My only goal was to have people think about the context of the question, and examine it's legitimacy in a fair way. Some have been able to do that, others like you and Grind, want to run straight back to the safety of the argument in your old familiar context, an argument you believe you can win, because you are too afraid to explore other possibilities.
You can't demand physical proof of a supernatural thing, it's as silly and pointless as demanding science be explained by spirituality. The spiritual and physical worlds are two entirely different things, so why would parameters of one fit the other? Why would requiring physical proof for a supernatural entity, be any less ridiculous than requiring supernatural proof of the physical? In my opinion, one is as bad as the other. We must put things in their proper context before we answer the question.