Presumption of non-existence is just as much a presumption as presumption of existence. One man looks at the universe and thinks, "Someone must have created th

Presumption of non-existence is just as much a presumption as presumption of existence. One man looks at the universe and thinks, "Someone must have created this, for nothing can exist without having been created." Another man looks at the universe and thinks, "I cannot see who created this, therefore no one did." Who has the better case? Who has more evidence? Of course, it's a matter of interpretation. But the same can be said for your assertion about the philosophical burden of proof and claim for an idea. One man claims, "I cannot see who created, therefore there is no creator. If you think someone created it, the burden of proof is upon you." Another man says, "It exists, therefore someone created it. If you think no one created it, the burden of proof is upon you to explain how something can exist without having been created." Whichever side you take requires making assumptions that lay the burden of proof on the other side. And if one were going to choose a side, I fail to see how the no-creator side is a stronger default position: the fact of the universe's existence is evidence that it was created. To disprove this would require demonstrating how something can exist without having been created.