I think you should recognize the contradiction there. “Proof” is not subjective. Either God’s provable or not.
I’m not able to invest the time here to rehash the evidence supporting or contradicting the Bible. But I hope to never be so arrogant and insulting as to publicly accuse all those that disagree with me of being “irrational”.
I think He does both. I think He has provided both public proof in the form of public miracles which show His power and public prophecies which show His foreknowledge. As well as proving Himself on a personal level with individuals.
I do think God is provable. But just like there are some people who refuse to believe that man walked on the moon, you can't get everyone to spend the time to consider the evidence, or to believe the validity of the evidence.
Believing or not whether man walked on the moon doesn't really have any ramifications for how we live. Believing or not in God has major ramifications.
Unfortuately I think many people allow the ramifications to influence their objectivity in weighing the evidence. Hence, instead of truly considering the evidence, people choose what they want to believe first and then see the evidence through rose colored glasses.
To be sure, Atheists aren't the only ones who do that. Christians do too. And it accounts for many of the differing interpretations of scripture that are out there.
It most certainly is. One cannot truly "prove" anything, since all such "proofs" are apprehended solely via the senses — a subjective process. The senses can be fooled; the result, as Descartes famously observed, is that is it impossible to say definitively that anything is true based upon the evidence of the senses alone. The only thing one can be certain of is one's own existence, i.e. that which is experienced directly, without recourse to the senses: cogito, ergo sum.
Logically speaking, there is more support for the idea that God exists than the contention that elfman2 exists. After all, the existence of a non-contingent being (i.e. God) is logically required if a demonstrably contingent universe is held to exist. The existence of the universe, however, in no way depends of the existence of elfman2.
The logic is inescapable: since the only thing one can know for sure is that oneself exists, then all that one holds to be true outside of that fact is held to be true on the basis of belief. The existence of atoms, other people, France, God — all must, in the final analysis, be taken on faith. Therefore, one must either be a solipsist or a believer; there can be no other option.
I believe that you exist, for example — but I can't prove it, and neither can you. Like one's own existence, the existence of God needs no proof — both may be inferred from the evidence of the senses, but in the end both may be known only by direct experience.