“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
~Stephen F Roberts
While it’s true that I can’t disprove God, that’s not a rational argument for his existence.
You can’t disprove Apollo, Mars, Thor or Vishnu either…. Do you believe in them? Is the fact that they can’t be disproved any (and I mean any) evidence for their existence? If it is, why don’t you believe in them? If not, why should you and your god be an exception?
One can not disprove Russell’s teapot, Sagan’s invisible dragon which he kept in his garage, nor my claim that I am the king of Siam (for which I have a lengthy explanation which I will burden you with now), is that reason to believe in any of these? Indeed the list of things which can not be disproved is infinitely long.
The burden is not on those who would disprove it, but those seeking to prove (or at least suggest) the claim. All claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’ve seen (and this is not a joke) about as much evidence for the existence of vampires as God.
People have claimed for so long that there is a god or gods, that they forget that it’s just that–a claim. And like all claims, it requires evidence (and killing the unbelievers, popular in most religions at one time or another, may cement the position as unassailable, but it isn’t proof–in fact it suggests that even the basic evidence is so scant you have to threaten people into believing). And extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; if you’re going to make a deistic claim for a supreme being (or take it a step further and say that you know who this being is, that he’s taken a personal interest in your life, and tells you who you can have sex with, what words you can say on television, what to wear on your head, or how you should treat women), you’ll need evidence (at least if you intend on imposing these beliefs on others).
The strongest evidence for Christianity appears to be a 2,000 year old book which has been translated, re-translated, mistranslated, cut and pasted, containing numerous internal contradictions and inconsistencies, and is based on archaic moral principals which are utterly shocking to the modern conscience despite being regularly employed as recently as a few generations ago. And while your faith in this book may be absolute, it’s no stronger, not by an ounce, than the belief of those who follow the Koran, Book of Mormon, Bagivad Gitia, or any one of the thousand religious texts written over the millennia but since forgotten.
It is those who believe in god who must prove the claim, and they must indeed set the proper bar (an old favorite of theists is to set the bar to deism, that is that there is a higher power, attempt to clear it with a prime mover argument, and then claim a theistic victory for their God. But even if prime mover arguments were valid, they’re no better evidence for Yahweh than Apollo). If they can’t or choose not to prove it (because it would destroy their faith to do so; faith can only exist where evidence is absent… which is what makes it so dangerous) that’s another topic. But that science can not disprove any one or more gods is not evidence, of any kind, for any deity we’ve thought to invent.