Show me a photon. Pick up a blade of grass and show me an individual carbon atom. Prove to me where the primal mass that provided the fuel for the Big Bang came from.
God exists. Religions of all sorts are imperfect attempts to reduce the incomprehensible to graspable. At least, that's how they start. All that I am familiar with end up pushing an agenda of some sort.
This neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.
For thousands of years, people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
For thousands of years, people believed that the world was composed of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.
For thousands of years people scoffed at the idea of atoms and molecules which couldn't be proven.
For thousands of years, people scoffed at the idea that disease is caused by micro organisms, rather than "bad humors" in the air.
There are those of us who believe that rather than deny the existence of God, it is more realistic to take the view that God exists, and is imperfectly understood. The inability to prove something's existence is certainly no impediment to that existence.
There is no guarantee that what most people think of as God is not simply a natural phenomenon we don't yet understand.
The same can be said for life after physical death; multiple incarnations, (for lack of a better word this early in the morning.) or another existence in some realm we cannot comprehend is a possibility. It may be part of the natural order that we just don't know about yet.
Five hundred years ago people did not think the amount of knowledge we possess today even existed in the universe, and yet that same impossible amount of knowledge is growing exponentially every year.
Don't limit yourself to the provable. Had humans done that, I would not be typing this and you would not be reading it because both depend on what, once upon a time were unprovable phenomenon of the natural world.

Thank you, Loki, for a thoughtful and well-reasoned response, offered in a calm and respectful tone.

You are offering a version of a proposition which commits the logical fallacy,
argumentum ad ignorantiam that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

My response would be that of Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
https://youtu.be/8Nikg4hMRjs

But I'm sure you know that already. I'm honored that you stopped by! Its been a pleasure hearing from you.