In debating the existence of a god (a personal creator god to be specific), it seems to me that the theoretical and opposing propositions that ‘there is a god’ and ‘there is no god’ stand on equal intellectual footing in that they are equally assertions of certainty and equally in need of proof (or evidence) and the burden to provide it.
This is especially true when it comes to scientific evidence. And as far as I can tell, neither position can simply ‘follow the science.’
Science is incapable of either explanation since science is self-limited by its own tools and integrity.
Science is incapable of finding god. And equally incapable of finding an answer to god’s existence or non-existence. It cannot legitimately build a road to theism or atheism.
Science and theoretical metaphysics seeking ultimate meaning are separate and distinct enterprises.
Discussions of god’s existence are limited to theology, philosophy, prologue, reason, first principles, and intuition.
I think that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proofs.
To me, I think the real question wouldn't be whether or not God exists, as it's largely unprovable either way. Why not: how can any God we posit inspire devotion rather than an immediate "incitement of insurrection"?