I personally think it's a little pointless to be asking for proof of God too. If something is allegedly above the system, proving it within the system wouldn't make any sense to me. Like bending the spoon in the Matrix... you can't bend the spoon from the level in which the spoon exists. You can come up with some pretty solid conclusions about God philosophically, but that isn't proof. The word proof gets misused a lot.
There are some claims that have been made about some of this particular God's actions that I think have been sufficiently disproven, however.
Anyway, what I'm bothered by is people A) trying to prove creationism scientifically by using awful pseudoscience that no real scientist ever stood behind, and B) stating beliefs coming from little more than faith as factual information, and encouraging those listening to treat them as such. Having beliefs and calling them beliefs doesn't bother me.
I do implore theists to ask themselves some serious questions about what they think God really is. There is a huge difference between what we and what people in biblical times can conceive of. Even as a child you learned very complex things about the world (i.e. germs, solar systems, atoms, etc.) those people never dreamed of. More information flows through your brain in a year than they experienced in entire lifetimes. I'm probably even being conservative here. Limiting yourselves to a God envisioned by those people is a little like graduating 2nd grade in school and saying, "That's it for me... I know all I need to know now." I'm personally not an athiest, but the "God" I envision is so completely unlike anything ever suggested to me by old school religions that I can't even bring myself to call it that... that word has too many connotations I just don't want to deal with. I have more in common with athiests than I do with the typical believers of western religions.