"Proof"

Why would one bring a conclusion without a proof? One might believe. Yes, if there is a proof of the subject then one would believe. To prove something to realize its existence needs further compelling proof. Yes, if the subject is true then there must be a proof that it is true. To what I conclude, yes it is fact that there must be a basis in order for the subject to exist but inside the human mind are full of questions and we only reach a certain point of knowledge. We do not really fully know the other side, the side of the unknown, unless we are to become aware of it; there is so much more to the other side than to what we know now.
Speaking of God, not to be religious, if there is a Being of such existence, where is the proof? – A man might ask. If matter made matter then who made matter? But the rising problem is, did matter make matter alone, or someone made the primary matter? If matter made the planets, who then (if there is someone) made the matter of which the planets are built with remarkable complexity? There must be a complex intellectual Being behind all of these.
Who made humanity, science? Who made science? Science itself? There must be an invisible scientist behind all of these. And the Scientist’s majestic work must be seen by His creation and fortunately we do already see it and are experiencing it, the nature of His creation and its beauty perceptible by man’s observation. There must be someone who have done all of these.