Debating Atheism (part 3)

This is the continuation of an ongoing discussion I am having with Theomorph. We are discussing the recent debate, "Does God Exist?" between William Lane Craig and Austin Dacey. Here are my initial comments regarding his take on the debate. You can read part 2 here.

Theomorph believes that Craig was not arguing his case from a theists perspective but from a Christian perspective.

Craig may have claimed that he is a theist, but it would have been more honest to say that he is a conservative evangelical Christian, which is certainly not the same thing. His arguments for theism would not have the same resonance with non-conservative, non-evangelical, non-Christian theists.

I don't think Dacey was shocked to discover that Craig is a Christian. Nor do I believe that changes the debate. Craig should argue, at least in my opinion, from his own perspective. The debate becomes less personal if he can't do that. I don't think Dacey argued from a generic atheist's postition either. I think he provided reasons for his own personal beliefs and doubts. How would a skeptic argue from any other position? (BTW-I realize "skeptic" is not the same as atheist, however, I am also aware that Dacey is a skeptic-as most atheists are). Dacey certainly lost focus when he brought up an article Craig wrote about Hell. What exactly does that argument have to do with the debate? It was an ad hominem argument that backfired when Craig called him on it.

I think this is the crux of Theomorph's position:

The problem is that it's only useful to provide evidence and proof for things we have already seen (but don't understand), but it's pointless to provide evidence and proof that something we can't see is actually there.

Then why are we having this discussion? If supernatural possibilities are beyond your comprehension, no amount of convincing will ever prove anything to you. Unless God reveals Himself to you, there will be no belief in Him. The only chance of my arguments making any sense to you is if God gives you some kind of physical experience to believe in Him. But then, how would your belief be sustained? Would He have to continually provide you with physical experiences to prove He is still there? You could just as easily claim that what you experienced was merely a halucination. Now, God must come to you in bodily form and remain by your side at all times, all the while showing you that He is God, to prove to you that it was not a halucination. But then, how does He prove to you that He is God? Miracles, could be written off as some sort of slight-of-hand trick or mirrors and smoke. Miracles didn't convince everyone who saw Jesus heal the sick that He was God, why would it be any different today? So what would it take for you to believe? I see you already responded to this question...you said "it wouldn't take anything at all." And then you go on to show how the physical universe proves its existence everyday by experience. It sounds like the above analogy I gave, is not too far from the truth of what it would take for you to believe. It would take the supernatural to become natural for you to accept it. Am I wrong?