If a skeptic ever tells you that they would become a Christian if only God provided what they deem to be sufficient proof, you have good reasons to be skeptical about such a claim. I think such a claim relies on an assumption which is not always true and also demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the Christian endeavor.

Firstly, it assumes some version of the saying that seeing is believing. This is problematic, especially if the person doesn’t really want to believe. Personal beliefs are not merely passive reflections of objective reality. Prior beliefs and assumptions play a big role in shaping us. A person might claim that if there was just some stupendous, miraculous event that clearly and undoubtedly demonstrated the truth of Christianity, they would believe. But how do we know that same person wouldn’t simply insist that such a thing could not have happened given what he knows about the way the world works and that it must be some kind of illusion or trick of the mind?

Secondly, even if our hypothetical person did believe, that wouldn’t necessarily make him a Christian. It would make him have true beliefs about God but as the Bible tells us, even demons have true beliefs about God. Jesus is pretty clear that a person must be born again. (John 3) He’s pretty clear that a person might call him Lord and yet not actually submit to him. (Luke 6)

In short, our hypothetical skeptic might be assuming too much.