Belief alone can never be proof. This type of sectarianism is intellectually corrupt. The obvious fact is that defenders of one set of miracle traditions or one set of canonical books are merely repeating what they were taught as children and have never been able to escape, even when the evidence is against those teachings or when they encounter an alternate set of traditions. The book of Daniel has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. The lions just severed Daniel's jugular vein, and he has bled to death.
Scholars can piece together part of the origin of Daniel.
Ezekiel lived several decades before the Persians captured Babylon, so his Daniel, a figure of the past to him, cannot be the Daniel of the book of Daniel, who lived there during and after the city's fall. The writings of Enoch are blatant fiction, written by an anonymous Jewish writer who used an ancient figure to present his own ideas. A number of other pseudepigrapha followed, attributing various writings to Moses, Ezra and Baruch. If Daniel was written in the 2nd century B.C.E., then it follows this tradition. Nothing in the Book of Daniel requires us to abandon that assumption.