Do the faithful have the burden of proof? You know, to PROVE that God exists?
ATHEIST: “The logic is the onus of proof is on the person making the claim,” i.e., that the “no God” premise is false. See NOTE 1.
Yet, for the human capacity to reason, they do not.
The image above represents an objectively true process for finding truth. Here, and for their capacity to reason, humans MUST assume that there is a reason for everything (objective reality)–i.e., the UNKNOWN hypothesis. Sidebar: absolute truth and the UNKNOWN hypothesis are evidence of a creator.
NOTE 1 – Reason is always a process of disproof (see the image above). Therefore, rational people have the burden of disproof. That is, there is no need to prove the existence of God so long as the God hypothesis meets the necessary condition.
Nevertheless, all hypotheses for “a reason for everything (the UNKNOWN hypothesis)” are unfalsifiable (residing outside objective reality). So, it will not be possible to produce objective truth on the “God” question. This is why the existence of God is taken as a matter of faith.
Yet, an alternative hypothesis might be reasonable. Whereas “no hypothesis (i.e., no-God)” is an explicitly unreasonable position since there must be a reason for the fact that “there is a reason for everything.” This is true because you are, with the no-God position, saying in essence, that there is no reason for the fact that there is “a reason for everything.” This is how the no-God position (alone) is disproved. The atheist position thus fails as a matter of logic.
Finally, you are entitled to say: I just do not know (agnostic), but you cannot RATIONALLY claim the NO-GOD position.
Or, the burden of disproof (for the God hypothesis) is on you. Yet, as Bertrand Russel suggested in Russels’s Teapot analogy, proof or disproof of God is impossible.
NOTE 2 – Requireing the falsifiable hypothesis, the image below antiucipates this problem through other terms.