Yes, the burden of proof is up to the believer. That's how the burden of proof works.
Evidence is anything that is concordant with and exclusively indicative of one conclusion.
But before you can get there you need to define your god clearly. And shifting that onto us by saying "well what is the god you don't believe in?" Quite frankly there are a lot of god concepts. Some I don't believe in because they are logically impossible. Some I don't believe in because there is no reason to think they are anything more than myths. Some are just stupid metaphors for real things.
You say you believe in "the god of the bible" and I say that's not clear enough. Because if you read it VERY literally god is an immortal human living in the sky. Yes, that is a legitimate reading of the old testament. There are also people who define the god of the bible as a magical disembodied mind. And there are some who believe something in between. So what is it?
But you also say that here you just want to know what evidence would be sufficient to establish the existence of a creator of the universe. Too vague. Let's say I believe that a baby and a dog got thrown outside the universe during a botched time travel event and created the universe by trying to get back in. There's video of that. Is that sufficient? Is that what you mean? Or maybe a pan-galactic scientist named Larry in another universe created our universe in a contained experiment. Is that what you mean? Or maybe universe-pooping black holes in another universe created this one. Is that what you would label as god?
A definition of god needs to be established first. Then you can present your evidence of it.
Evidence is anything that is concordant with and exclusively indicative of one conclusion.
But before you can get there you need to define your god clearly. And shifting that onto us by saying "well what is the god you don't believe in?" Quite frankly there are a lot of god concepts. Some I don't believe in because they are logically impossible. Some I don't believe in because there is no reason to think they are anything more than myths. Some are just stupid metaphors for real things.
You say you believe in "the god of the bible" and I say that's not clear enough. Because if you read it VERY literally god is an immortal human living in the sky. Yes, that is a legitimate reading of the old testament. There are also people who define the god of the bible as a magical disembodied mind. And there are some who believe something in between. So what is it?
But you also say that here you just want to know what evidence would be sufficient to establish the existence of a creator of the universe. Too vague. Let's say I believe that a baby and a dog got thrown outside the universe during a botched time travel event and created the universe by trying to get back in. There's video of that. Is that sufficient? Is that what you mean? Or maybe a pan-galactic scientist named Larry in another universe created our universe in a contained experiment. Is that what you mean? Or maybe universe-pooping black holes in another universe created this one. Is that what you would label as god?
A definition of god needs to be established first. Then you can present your evidence of it.
