No, no, no, you're not taking it far enough.
Every so often, we hear about the types who require "proof" or "evidence" usually in the narrow sense of what those mean to "believe" something. Don't make this about a father doing magic tricks to prove they are someone's father. It's even more basic than that.
How many of us have received proof in the narrow sense (a DNA test) that our fathers are our fathers?
It's an interesting point.
I accepted a lot of things when young, and then over time those beliefs developed and changed. When I was five, I didn't question 'God' at all. I'm not suggesting for a moment that belief in God is immature, only that beliefs change due to external agents. This would be the same as belief that my father was my father.
I believed he was at five. The difference is that, much as I wished it were different when I was a teenager (we've reconciled...lol), I had no cause to believe my father wasn't my father. I could have been completely wrong, of course...but there was no external agent causing cognitive dissonance that needed to be resolved.
So if I were a theist or...I dunno...let's say 'non-atheist'...then i believe the nature of that theism would be different from the nature of the theism I accepted when I was five. The dissonance and external agents could have been reconciled in a different manner. For the sake of argument, I could have become a deist, or panentheist, or pantheist, or...lot's of things. But some specific beliefs around God were unsustainable in my opinion, and based on my life and manner of thinking.
TLDR : I don't need proof that my dad is my dad. I wouldn't ignore proof he wasn't.