Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That means that any person who claims there is a god has to provide sufficient evidence if they want to persuasively convince others.  Likewise, if someone were to insist there is no god, they would also shoulder the burden of proof.  As an atheist, I do not claim there are gods but neither do I assert there are no gods.  I simply find the issue to be unresolved and unknowable.  There may indeed be some kind of creative force out there but in my estimation, it doesn't really matter.  What theists claim is that their god is personal and all powerful and all good and all knowing and I have not seen sufficient evidence to support that kind of god.  All I have seen is evidence that people (past and present) believe in such a god or gods.

What type of evidence is required?  It's hard to say because it depends on the claim being made.  I can say that ancient texts are not enough and neither are personal anecdotes.  Seeing that we live in a physical world, it would seem necessary to ask for physical evidence.  Some people claim that god is supernatural and therefore, outside the scope of testability in a natural world.  That's fair enough but then I would say that a god like that hardly matters at all.  Further, if people take the further leap that said god personally cares about what we do and interacts with us in this physical reality then we are back to asking for empirical evidence to substantiate the claim.  

Finally, let us discuss the philosophical arguments for god.  As I stated in the previous paragraph, conjecture and speculation are not enough to demonstrate a god who genuinely matters to us.  All philosophical attempts to "prove" god are flawed because they are only thought experiments dreamed up by humans with personal biases.  More to the point, philosophical arguments are not evidence of any sort.  A logical argument is a tool that humans have created to help evaluate datum but cannot be considered evidence in itself.  If one could create a logical argument that proved god that would not necessarily mean that god must exist. 

On a personal note, I respect the right for others to believe or not believe in god(s), as they see fit.  I do not, however, accept their personal believe as evidence of the existence of such beings.  And I most certainly do not accept that any human has the right to inflict their morals on others using enverifiable beliefs and unsubstantiated god claims.  Legislating morality is a flawed endeavor and ironically, an immoral act upon society.  Without sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a supernatural power, politicians and law-makers are just oppressing the unbelieving minority, as well as believers of other faiths and creeds.