The religious need to prove God, not visa versa.

Ok, so my main points today are as follows:THE BURDEN OF PROOF Surely when a person proposes a concept, that concept must be backed up with proof for it to be taken seriously. For example, if in the early 20th century, Lemiatre had told the world that the universe was created by a big bang, and left it at that, no one would have believed him. He had to prove his Point. It wasn't the job of Einstein to prove him wrong, it was his job to prove it, like I said before, I could say that Pandas came from Andromeda, and no one would bother disproving it, because I have not proved it. If the religious community were to give some hard evidence for God rather that "logic" people would be more inclined to disprove God, no scientific research is being put into disproving God, because as there is no conclusive evidence either which way, we just disregard it. The reasons as to why we cannot disprove God are similar.We have no parameters of existence.The reasons why we as Atheists cannot disprove God is because we have no parameters for his existence. Essentially all that we know of him is that he is invisible and omnipotent. It is impossible to disprove conclusively a concept on which we have so little information. Again this is where the burden of proof once again falls on the religious. We will not be able to get any more info on a deity because we are atheist and don't really know what we are looking for, even if we did, it still is not up to us. If you are going to come up with such an important concept, at least provide some information! You can't just say, "God is invisible, he is all powerful and he created everything" and expect people to be able to disprove that. We just can't! If however the Pope was to announce that God lived on Mercury and breathed Oxygen, then we would be able to disprove that, because we have something to work with. I am sorry but I am going to use my Panda analogy again. I have not given any information on means of transport, who sent them, why they came here, and when. So it would be impossible to disprove because we have so little knowledge of the subject. So if we had more info on God, we might be able to disprove him.However my point remains that that is not our job. Rather the religious must first provide some hard evidence for God and then we can work to disprove it. But at the moment we just can't do that because the area is too uncertain. We have no knowledge of his being and thus cannot have any evidence for or against. Especially against. I would like to stress the following: Evidence against something is based on rebutting evidence for. But we have non for, and so non against.Side note: The fact that even a man who claims to be Gods missionary (The Pope) and to hear the words of God, cannot prove God and can't explain his existence, seems to point to a universe with no God. After all, surely if there was one, he would want to end all the drama in the middle East and would make his existence clear, maybes by providing the Pope or a Rabbi with a way to Prove a deity.I look forward to my opponent's arguments and would ask him/her not to try and prove God but to prove that Atheist bear the burden of (Dis)proof.