The Problem of the Burden of Proof

OBJECTION: Christians claim that an invisible being (God) actually exists. The burden of proof for such a mysterious life form lies with the Christian. Those who don't believe in such an unseen being are simply expressing the 'default' position. Atheists don't need to prove that their position (the lack of belief in an invisible being); their belief is the most reasonable given the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The Answer Lies in the Nature of the Questions and Answers
As a Christian, I recognize that life is filled with important questions, and all of us (whether we realize it or not) want answers. We all have to think carefully about what we believe (and shoulder the burden of proving it) because, while there are many questions, there are only two kinds of answers:

There Are Many Questions
Atheists and theists will both agree that the big questions of life are numerous. How did the universe come into existence? Why does the universe exhibit the 'appearance' of 'fine tuning'? How did life originate? Why does biology exhibit the 'appearance' of 'design'? How did human consciousness come into being? Where does 'free will' come from? Why are humans so contradictory in nature? Why do transcendent moral truths exist? Why do we believe human life to be precious? Why does pain, evil and injustice exist in our world? While each of us may have our own list of unanswered questions, we can at least agree that there are many important issues that need to be examined.

There Are Two Kinds of Answers
In the end, the answers to these questions can be divided into two categories: answers from the perspective of philosophical naturalism (a view held by atheists), or answers that accept the existence of supernatural forces (a view held by theists). Atheists maintain that life's most important questions can be answered from a purely naturalistic perspective (without the intervention of God), while theists recognize that there are times when the evidence leaves naturalism 'wanting' for an answer. In times like these, the theist finds it evidentially reasonable to turn to the supernatural (the realm of God) for an answer.

There Is One Shared Responsibility
Both groups share a singular burden of proof. If theists are going to posit that God is the answer to some (or all) of these questions, they are going to have to argue for His existence and activity. If atheists are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for God, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic expalanations to life's big questions. In either case, both groups (if they are honest with themselves) will have to shoulder the burden of proving their own case. The burden of proof is not limited to the theist; all of us need to be able to make a case for our choice of answers. One side defends supernaturalism, the other defends philosophical naturalism.

The nature of the questions (and the limited categories of the potential answers) ought to cause all of us to evaluate which of the two possibilities is most reasonable. While atheists are sometimes un-persuaded by the arguments for God's existence, they are still woefully unable to provide coherent and adequate answers to the most important questions of life. If naturalism is true, the atheist will also share the burden of proving that it can provide all the answers.