To be clear, you are asking Dawkins (or anyone) to “prove” a supernatural being, which by definitions exists outside of “nature,” does NOT exist?
I see 3 problems with that, despite your argument to the contrary:
Empirically proving negatives is scientifically impossible.
Science does not deal with the supernatural
Science does not ever deal with “proof” anyway.
The burden of proof is solely on the believer. You say something exists, demonstrate through a repeatable test that it exists. Sounds pretty simple to me.
Hmm, apparently Dawkins did not get the memo.
Empirically proving negatives is scientifically impossible.
Again, this is not true. If you know what is in your set of things, you can clearly prove that something is not in a given set if you have all the facts. Isn't this a fundamental of logic itself?
Science does not ever deal with “proof” anyway.
How is any sort of scientific concept validated? Other scientists try to to reproduce the concept independently. If this type of proof cannot be done, then the concept is rejected.
Dawkins is trying to extend his belief that there is no supernatural beings of any kind into the realm of science. He fails because his assertion cannot be scientifically proven. As is always the case though, anyone who challenges this is almost always asked to prove that their supernatual being of choice does exist. I know I cannot do this, and hence it is why it is a belief. I might be able to say that certain things that happen in the realm of science are the result of the actions of one or more supernatural beings, but I certainly cannot prove it.