Or perhaps "chi" is different then God. Perhaps, there is proof that "something" is happening but chi is just an antiquated explanation. See this
thread. Or
this one. Or
this one.
I've posted this link somewhere else, I think, but it seems germane here, since it's the inverse case of the one Blotan brings up: Redmond is religious, but doesn't believe in Chi/Ki/Qi, except as an exotic way of talking about an optimal state of the mind and body, for there reasons he gives in
this essay. Note in particular what he says about ki:
It is just energy, plain and simple. When I feel like a million bucks, it is because I got enough sleep, I’m relaxed and unstressed, I am psychologically motivated and happy, and I have been eating well. To me, that is ki, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with believing in ki in that way. I cannot prove to you that ki does not exist, because I believe it does. I had some good ki this morning, and I revised this article for the umpteenth time and put it in the queue to be published on my web site.
However, I do not believe that ki means special energy flowing through meridians in our bodies. I do not believe that ki is like The Force from Star Wars, something that I can harness and use to increase my strength, speed, or make objects move without touching them. I do not believe that ki is transferred from one person to another, projected outward, nor that it glows and that only the special people who sell psychic advice can see it. I do not believe that ki is anything other than a combination of my psychological state, food intake, brain chemistry, and physical health and completely internal to me.
(my emphases). The idea is, crudely, that Ki means firing on all twelve cylinders—nothing transcendental. The whole essay, which defends the point of view expressed in the above quote, is well worth reading—it's not very long, and it presents the burden-of-proof criterion for accepting an assertion about the existence of posited entities very succinctly and level-headedly.