Without some description of an 'Unie,' the alleged proof for its existence is incoherent. When confronted with the claim that a god exists, the person who immediately demands proof commits the same error as does Mr. White. The theist must present an intelligible description of god. Nothing can qualify as evidence for the existence of a god unless we have some idea of what we are searching for. Even if it is demanded that the existence of god be accepted on faith, we still must know what it is that we are required to have faith in.
Some atheists assert that no god-claim is understandable because all are illogical.
I don't go this far, and say that if, for example, one could produce a film portraying the god in question, we are not dealing with a completely incomprehensible claim. The Ten Commandmanes. When someone declares that no god claims are comprehensible, that person is usually called a noncognitivist. I still say that noncognitivism is a subset of atheism simply because the noncognitivist, by not understanding, lacks a god belief. The obvious advantage to having the theist describe their god to you is shown in Smith's passage above.