>To prove something exists, it has to be observed and specifically described by the masses first, in order to confirm it exists and can be further studied and accepted.
Not quite, no-one has ever observed and specifically described the infinity of pi, for example.
And described by the masses is a really poor metric, judging by Iraq being an al-qaida stronghold.
>I can prove god doesn't exist by using that process.
No you can't. The only way to prove god doesn't exist by exclusion it to become a god. I think you can see the problem.
Science is about models. A good model has predictive value, you can derive future behaviour from it. Most parameters in these models don't include the divine, true. But a common mistake is to think science is about truth which it isn't. Mixing up science and truth is why many are prepared to defend science with dogmatic perseverance.
You also mix up thinking about the concept of god with existing religions a lot.
Clear discourse starts with clear thoughts. Riling against a scary convoluted strawman is a trait of fanatics.