I'm pretty surprised (well, not really) at the mental gymnastics that some people will go through to maintain that god or no god, both are equally valid propositions because neither can be proven with any certainty. So here's a thought experiment I came up with as an analogy. Imagine you're a police officer driving over an overpass and you see two guys walk under the bridge. You're bored and convince yourself that it looks suspicious so you turn around and head back to investigate. When you get under the bridge you see one guy dead on the ground next to a pipe with his skull cracked and the other standing there with blood splatter on his clothes. The guy claims that he was just holding the pipe and it magically flew out of his hand and bashed the other guy in the head. Now in court you become the atheist in the debate and he the theist. He's making the claim that you have to accept the possibility that something magical that you've never seen before happened because you can't prove otherwise and he also has a lot to lose if you refuse this claim. You just want the court to examine the evidence that was collected by forensics, the blood splatter on his clothes, his fingerprints on the pipe, his blood on the victim (which he refuses to acknowledge or claims is fabricated conspiracy evidence) indicating a struggle. All of this evidence is not conclusive proof of his guilt. There's a slight chance that he could be telling the truth about the magic flying pipe but do we give equal credence to his version of events because we don't have a video of him committing the murder?