Atheist: "There is not 'ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE' of your God" or "There is no 'PROOF' of God whatsoever."
The problem here with statements like this is an inherent assumption that the scientific method of experimentation and observation is a NECESSARY condition for gaining knowledge or proof from "evidence". "Science" (i.e. the scientific method of experimentation and observation) is SUFFICIENT to gain knowledge, but not NECESSARY to gain knowledge. In other words, there are some things we know and can know that cannot be proven scientifically. There are at least 5 different ways other than the scientific method to gain knowledge:
1) Moral Truth:
Science cannot prove that torturing babies for fun is evil. Science can DESCRIBE pain receptors that transmit the feeling of pain. But any attempt to leap from the DESCRIPTIVE ("sentient beings feel pain...") to PRESCRIPTIVE ("sentient beings ought not feel pain") breaks Hume's law, or what is known as the is-ought fallacy.
2) Logical Truth:
Bertrand Russell once said, "What science cannot discover, mankind cannot know." What scientific study has verified this claim? None! That is because this is not a scientific statement--it is a philosophical one. David Hume once advised to toss any statement that is neither scientific or mathematical into the flames because, as he put it, "it can be nothing but sophistry and illusion." There’s just one problem here; Hume's statement is neither mathematical nor scientific. Therefore, by his own standard, that statement itself is "nothing but sophistry and illusion", and therefore belongs in the flames.
The laws of logic are self-evident axioms that are taken for granted by science and are necessary for the scientific endeavor, but they cannot be "proven" by science. Without the absoluteness of the laws of logic, however, all science disintegrates into subjective circular rubbish.
3) Historical Truth:
Science cannot prove Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States of America. In fact, there is a Facebook page dedicated to calling into question the existence of Abraham Lincoln as an actual person of history. According to the founders of "Did Abe Lincoln really exist?" Lincoln is just some mythical, tall, bearded, top hat wearing, Industrial Age, pagan knock-off emancipator hero invented by slaves to give them hope of emancipation. As with the description I just gave, the page is a parody of the modern "skeptic" who demands "peer-reviewed scientific journals" in order to consider anything a reasonable belief.
We can see how absurd this is, but this is what follows this new atheist religion called "scientism"--the belief that the scientific method of experimentation and observation is the only way we can know anything. All of history disintegrates into their black hole of infinite skepticism. It is like the child who asks, "How do you know, how do you know" on and on, ad infinitum. No amount of evidence can fill their hole of infinite skepticism (i.e. their black hole of cynicism).
4) Experiential Truth:
Science cannot prove the reality of our emotions. Things like love, jealousy, pride, envy, and sadness (that are all very real and true to our human experience) cannot be reduced to the molecular level. A water molecule is not proud of itself, hydrogen does not get jealous that oxygen attracts more electrons, and atoms don't get sad when they break their bonds with one another.
Op-ed note: Anyone who suggests the possibility that molecules can feel proud, jealous, or angry should be permanently removed from any teaching position, and should probably be placed on a 72-hour hold.
5) Basic Human Rights truth:
Science cannot prove the "self-evident truth", that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights life, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
The wording here is found in the Declaration of Independence and is the basis for our civil rights. These basic human rights are grounded in the fact that all humans bear the image of God; the image humans bear (their spirit) has a certain worth and dignity that sets us apart from the animal kingdom. This is why animals do not have civil rights--they are not spiritual creatures (i.e. they are not made in the image of God) and therefore are not endowed by their Creator with the same unalienable Rights as humans. Once again we all recognize this self-evident truth; however, science cannot prove this truism.
What we have demonstrated above is that although "science" is SUFFICIENT to gain knowledge/truth, it is NOT NECESSARY for knowledge/truth. Necessity excludes other methods or possibilities, sufficiency does not.
Just because science does a great job of explaining HOW things work doesn't mean science does a great job of explaining WHY things work. The deeper we ask the question of "WHY?" the less we deal with actual testable, empirical, and verifiable field of science and the more we deal with philosophy. This is why some of the greatest and brightest minds in OPERATIONAL science (i.e. explaining HOW the universe works) make very poor philosophers. Example: Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest physicists of our time has said, "Philosophy is dead." Notice, this statement cannot be tested, or empirically proven (i.e. this is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one). Moreover, this statement , being philosophical in nature, is self-defeating. This is just one example of the great OPERATIONAL scientists being poor philosophers.
When it comes to nature of ORIGINS (origin of reason, consciousness, order, intelligence, life, and everything), we are using more philosophy (logic and propositional truth) than OPERATIONAL science to get closer to THE TRUTH. Therefore, those scientists, whose expertise is in OPERATIONAL sciences, are stepping outside their area of expertise to offer explanations to origins that (most of the time) are self-defeating or nonsensical statements like, "philosophy is dead", "the universe came from nothing", or "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
In short, science can tell us what "something" is. But science cannot answer WHY there IS SOMETHING rather than nothing. Science can describe what the physical constants are and name them. But science cannot answer WHY there are physical constants. Science can measure the constants. But science cannot answer why the physical constants are so fine-tuned that if any were altered in the slightest degree intelligent life would not be possible.
An honest truth seeker will find there is ample "evidence/proof" of God through these other means of knowledge/truth. If you are unwilling to be honest about the sufficiency of these other means to arrive at knowledge/truth and the evidence of God from them, it could be that you are more interested in clenching on to a worldview that allows you to be your own god, than actually arriving at the TRUTH.
David Berlinski summed up much of this topic in his book, The Devil's Delusion:
"Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on."