God probably does not exist

I'm going to lay out my position here and define what I mean by God. I am talking any sort of deity who created the universe around us. This god can be the God of Abraham, a deist-esque God, or the gods of a polytheistic religion. The only criteria must be that this character had to have created the universe around us. Please, no playing devil's advocate. Only take this debate if you believe in a creator. Although I freely admit that God could possibly exist (i.e. he/she/it doesn't definitively not exist), I believe the chances of such are quite slim. I would consider myself a faery atheist agnostic. The burden of proof in any argument always lies on the people making the claim. A person is guilty until proven innocent. The person who says something happened, or says something exists must prove it. An infinite amount of things do not exist at any given point, and an infinite among of things are not happening as you read this, but only a finite amount of things are happening. Each moment that I type the letter "A" I am not typing the letter "B" or "C" or taking a shower or eating a banana or eating banana pudding. I could list things that I am not doing for a quite a bit longer than things I am doing. Now if you are given no evidence at a given point in time that I am in the process of typing the letter A, it is absurd and irrational to assume that I am typing that letter (there is an infinite list of things I could be doing which are more or less equiprobable but there is only one potential event that I type the letter A, which is that I type it) at that point in time. Furthermore, it is ridiculous and time-wasting (at best) to then to worship my typing of the letter A (one because it is so obviously improbable, but also because it is quite strange to worship single-minded typists). That said, I am not definitively not typing the letter A at any given point in. I could be, but the chances are so slim as to beyond consideration. This is the way I feel about the existence of God. Of course, me typing a particular letter and the worship thereof is a ridiculous idea, but the point still stands and the analogy is clear. This is the essence of Russell's teapot argument (http://en.wikipedia.org......) and an argument which is very compelling. Our system of guilty until proven innocent is one of the things that makes the American judicial system great, and that same logic and reasoning should be applied to all issues worthy of debate (such as this one). Because of all this, there is very little I can say in this opening in the way of arguing. I can point out the lack of evidence presented to me in favor of God, although hopefully some will be shown to me as this continues. I am doomed to wait for a response, and then respond to the arguments put forward with counter-arguments. Because when we debate the existence of something, the assumption is that it does not exist. Therefore, once someone puts forth the idea that something (be it God, rainbows exists or something has/is/will happened/happening/happen, they must put forth their evidence, and the skeptic must discuss and pry at the aforementioned evidence. It is in this way that we can reach at the truth (or the probability) of such a statement. I eagerly anticipate the response of one of the faithful.