the person who makes a claim that something IS who is responsible for proving it.
As this statement keeps popping up, I'd like to point out that this thread was not started by any deist claiming the existence of God. It was started with the challenge, "Prove to me that God exists." This implies to me that the original statement comes from the negative position--that God DOES NOT exist--for people generally do not ask for proof of something they already believe, which is why I replied with, "Can you prove God does not exist?" which received a chilly response from some.
From the beginning, I didn't think this was a good title. We can never prove the existence/non-existence of God in a formal sense--using a premise and statements that lead to a conclusion--because we would never agree on a premise. This is proof more in the sense of what happens in a trial, where various types of evidence can be presented, including personal testimony. The objective in court is not to prove an assertion to all people, but only to persuade a judge or jury. Each individual has her/his own unique way of processing the evidence, and what is convincing to one is not to another, as anyone who has served on a deadlocked jury could attest to. So, as I suggested way back at the start, it would be better to state something like, "Convince me God exists" or "Persuade me God exists" because we are dealing with one individual to whom the presentation of evidence has to be tailored.
This is also why I brought up the issue of accepting the possibility that God exists. It's like a court case, where the prosecuting attorney needs to show opportunity, because if the accused could not have committed the crime, there is no case. So first, I would want to determine if the individual accepts the possibility that God exists, because that has to be established first. Those of you who left JW, think about it, did you suddenly turn from wholly believing the WT to not believing? No, you went through a process that involved accepting or entertaining the possibility that the WT was wrong. Now this part of the process may have been very short or long, but it did happen--it had to. No rational person would believe something they consider to be impossible. So, if a person does not even consider the existence of God to be possible, the starting point has to be establishing the possibility. If the person does accept the possibility, but needs evidence, then you have a different starting point.
As I understood it, the intent of CB was for us to present evidence to HIM (or HER) for his (her) personal consideration. I never found out what the starting point was for CB. Personally, I don't engage in "cold calls."
I think I'm just approaching it from a different perspective than most, which is why my statements received a harsh response.