“Prove it” he writes. “Prove to me that your god exists and I’ll believe.”
But here lies a trap. For when a theist provides arguments for his belief in God this atheist merely waves his hand in the air saying: “That’s not evidence!”. You then realise that you’re dealing with someone who only wishes to confront, dismiss and argue. Now I don’t intend this to be a general diagnosis of all atheists out there; that would be unfair.
But when the atheist asks for “proof,” what he really means is empirical proof; something that one can test in the laboratory. But of course this totally misunderstands how Christian theology defines God, namely, a being that transcends the physical universe. He transcends it because he created it (Genesis 1:1).
But when a theist says that he has “proof” of God’s existence, or that it is a rational belief to believe in God, it is because there are better reasons for believing in God than not. It’s analogous to moral realism (namely that objective moral facts exist) or objective realism (that the external world exists). I believe, alongside most philosophers, that is is rational to believe in moral & objective realism because there are better reasons for believing in them than not. However, we cannot empirically verify that objective realism is true using the scientific method; yet we feel rationally justified in believing that the external world actually exists.
The same applies to the theists belief in God. Sure, there are challenges (suffering, evil in the world), but there is really good evidence (Jesus’ resurrection as a historical fact & the reality of miracles, for example) and powerful arguments supporting belief in God. Weighing these out shows why belief in God is rational, but at the same time not empirically verifiable.
So, asking the Christian to empirically prove God’s existence is to make a category mistake. It’s muddling up the the supernatural and the natural. So, I think when an atheist asks for such proof it comes over as odd and misinformed. The challenge doesn’t make sense just as challenging someone to empirically prove the smell of the colour blue is clearly nonsensical – smell and colour are not within the same categories.