Logically, therefore, we imperfect beings cannot disprove the existence of God. Sensibly, however, probability and rationale dictate that we are more likely to be correct in atheism than theism - at least by the terms defined in Christian theology. A true position would be agnosticism, but not 50/50, sitting on the fence, vacillating agnosticism. Informed agnosticism says we can't know for sure...but it's doubtful..."
My question here is, why is it doubtful? Because it is easier for him not to believe than to believe? Or does he have some sort of evidence to back this claim? The way he has worded his argument my guess is that he subscribes to the latter position.

To this I would say that I have enough evidence that God exists to be satisfied with my position. Being honest I also know that I cannot prove my position using logic or reason. That, however, does not make me wrong, it just makes me honest.

The thing I have come to accept over the years, is it is not my job to prove that God exists. I am responsible to give a reason for the faith and hope I have if asked, but I do not have to prove God's existence, that is His job.

Even if I was able to turn water into wine, heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform all the miracles ever mentioned in the Bible, this would not prove that God exists. All it would prove is that I can somehow manipulate the accepted laws of nature and do things that are normally considered to be impossible. All anyone else would have is my word on how I could do these things, and attributing them to God does not prove His existence.

I know I cannot prove God is real if you do not want to believe in Him. But, to me, it makes more sense to believe in Him than not, so I choose to believe. In spite of the assurances of a professor at Cambridge who thinks I am wrong.