Where is the Burden of Proof?

If you have any familiarity with the atheist position you will recognize immediately the importance of the argument for Burden of Proof, and you will also find it shocking when I conclude that it's not a terribly good argument. 

To describe it in brief, the person making a claim carries the burden of showing why that claim should be accepted.  The implication this has for the existence of god is that the atheist believes the theist has not yet provided any compelling evidence to support his position, and when pushed on the matter, the theist almost always resorts to the defense that in order to believe in god one must have faith.  This deference of evidence is quite unacceptable to any self respecting empiricist, which atheists typically are, and thus without having met the burden of proof the theist's claims of the existence of the divine are rejected.

Now I agree with all of that.  Excepting for the fact that in reality, conversations about philosophy are never that cut and dry.  A common rebuttal to this argument from the theist is "you can't prove God doesn't exist!" and this has been referred to as shifting the burden of proof.  How valid an argument can this be?

To see why it is a problem, consider the claim "Leprechauns hide a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow"  And supplement the already familiar definition of a leprechaun so that all leprechauns can detect when a person is nearby and can hide in such a way that they are undetectable (if they so choose).  Now a person could claim to have seen a leprechaun, maybe even caught a glimpse of his pot o' gold, but where is the evidence? Oh, well the leprechaun didn't want me to catch him so he ran off before I could get his picture (and so forth).  The whole notion of the leprechaun has been carefully constructed so that no evidence against them could ever be presented, and the only evidence in support of their magical ways is anecdotal at best.

So what if a devout leprechaunist came to you and told you their story?  No one in their right mind would believe them without a photograph or a clover-embossed gold token.  Could we be so bold as to expect an actual leprechaun in a cage?  So it should be equally obvious to us that when the leprechaunist insists you prove the little green bearded men DON'T exist, he is being entirely unreasonable.  Right?

Shouldn't you be able to offer some explanations for why you don't believe in leprechauns?  How about the fact that tiny little men have never been discovered?  Or our extensive knowledge concerning the physical properties that govern the creation of rainbows (since they are optical illusions and never physically reach the ground, how could a pot o' gold be located there?).  You explain that the physiology of the human body, even when shrunk to leprechaun scale would not allow a creature the speed and senses necessary to evade detection as described by the leprechaun claims.  I'm sure your reasons for doubting could fill a substantial list if considered at length.

But the leprechaunist would say, "that's not proof!", and indeed it isn't.  Thus this takes us to the point in the argument where I follow a different logical path than most of my atheist peers.  Enter: semantics.  What is "proof"?  Is it even something worth pursuing in the context of reality?  If you've read my previous posts you'll know by now that I make the important distinction between proof and evidence as I distinguish between certainty and uncertainty, and that all claims of knowledge about the real world carry with them some inescapable allowance of uncertainty.  So as I define the words (necessarily, to clarify concepts) nothing in this world can be conclusively proven to the level of certainty that people are accustomed to thinking in.

Therefore, it's better referred to as the Burden of Evidence.  Am I just being nitpicky?  Nope.  See, while proof can be considered an objective establishment of truth, one that is valid independent of the person receiving it, evidence is not.  Convincing evidence must integrate into a person's existing body of knowledge to be of any persuasion. 

Is this not what all transference of ideas ultimately boils down to?  Ideas about the world in which we live may be objectively right or wrong, but we'll never know which for sure.  That's the hard knocks of not being omniscient.  The function of communication instead is to facilitate the acceptance or rejection of ideas, and evidence (perceptions and ideas that support a new idea) is the means by which we accomplish this noble task.

So when we argue about a failure to meet the Burden of Proof (evidence), we haven't considered the complete picture.  If evidence is dependent on the person receiving it, then evidence is a judgement.  And there cannot be a judgement without a judge.  Each of us carries our own burden of proof, the product of all our knowledge, experiences, and past judgements.  So when an atheist says that the theist has not met the burden of proof, what he mean is that the theist has not met HIS burden of proof.  From the theist's point of view, many others have considered his claims of god to be justified, and he may genuinely have trouble understanding why the atheist does not.

If any discussion is to continue, which I believe it should, the atheist is going to need to explain himself.  Why are the theist's reasons insufficient?  Can some standards of evidence be agreed upon?  Probably not, but it's worth a try.  What understandings of reality does the atheist hold valid that prevent him from accepting the theist's claims?  He surely has some, so why not divulge them?  Just simply asserting that your burden of proof has not been met is metaphorically equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears.  That's fine if you're avoiding a conversation, but it doesn't say much for your intelligence.

This is NOT to say that the theist is justified in shifting the burden of proof.  If you've developed an idea which is by definition irrefutable (and certainly theism fits the bill), it would be irresponsible of you to expect someone else to perform the impossible in order to counter your claims.  Just as the leprechaun example is irrefutable (those tricky little Irishmen), this doesn't make the claim any more valid.  In fact, irrefutable claims are quite easy to construct - any supernatural claim for example, or one that relies upon knowledge that is unattainable.  Who has the time or the desire to futilely try to disprove any of them, let alone all of them?

My point is this: Calling upon the burden of proof shouldn't be the "end all" for discussions on the existence of god.  Let's stop focusing on proof, as if anything could be shown conclusively, and let's continue down the path of sharing ideas.  There is certainly no shortage of them.  Am I too naive to believe that we may eventually agree that some of these ideas match our perceptions of reality better than others?