I don't know how deep I'm willing to get into this debating God thing. As Richard Posner aptly put it: "You cannot convince a religious person that there is no God, because he does not share your premises, for example that only science delivers truths. There is no fruitful debating of God’s existence."
And vice versa.
However, I've detected in Sandefur's response an example of an atheist asking for a first miracle, which I don't think merits granting. He writes:
As to the persistence of time, I beg to differ. My understanding of the “big bang”—limited as it certainly is—is that time itself is a consequence of this incident, and therefore there is no sense in the question “What came before?” There simply is no before, because the concept of before has no referent except in the universe created through the big bang.
So he asks us to accept that time/space/matter/energy just appeared out of nothing that came before and that the big bang created the universe. This is asking for a miracle.
Of course, I've argued with atheists who say that the big bang didn't create the universe and that matter and energy and the time and space that would go with it, always existed -- the big bang was just a radical rearrangement of all this. See the theory of the expanding and contracting universe.