You've got it backwards, Art. See, you're the one who started the argument in favor of God's nonexistence, therefore, you're taking the affirmative side.
Wrong. What you're getting into is reframing the issue in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. However, in formal logic, the burden of proof most often lies on the one that can most easily satisfy it. For example, if I say "all ravens are black" and you say "not all ravens are black," then the burden of proof lies on the claim that can be most easily proven. However, I can rephrase the statements to be "there are no ravens that are white," and you would retort "there are ravens that are white." For all intents and purposes, the two examples I just gave you are the exact same, one is just stated in the positive and the other in the negative (all ravens are black vs. there are no white ravens). However, for both of these examples, the burden of proof lies on the second person since that person is asserting the existence of ravens that are not black.
And the point of all of this is that it is easier for the second person to present the world one raven that is white than it is for the first to gather all ravens, across the entire world, across all time, to confirm that they are all black. Since you are asserting the presence of god in the universe, all you need to do is come up with some proof for its existence. The burden of proof is not on Art to prove that god does not exist, is not hiding, has not abandoned humanity, has not died, etc. It is far easier for you to prove one of these (god exists, god is hiding, god abandoned humanity, god died, etc) than it is for Art to disprove all of these, not to mention any other excuse that the mind could conjure up. This isn't rocket science: it's something you'd learn in philosophy 101 at just about any university.
And for clarity, I use black and white ravens as the only two possibilities. While there could theoretically be a red raven (or some other in between) this is a metaphor for the existence of God--God cannot half-exist.
EDIT: I know Ironchew is inflammatory, but Guizonode did take a potshot at him first. I think it's unfair that someone can call Ironchew out with zero repercussion, and then Ironchew gets a week ban for crossing a line with his retort.
EDIT 2: And until Paragon meets this burden of proof, then it is irrational to believe in the existence of God. And before Paragon jumps off the deep end crying intolerance or persecution, my stance on this issue is no different than devout Christians Soren Kierkegaard or Immanuel Kant. And further to clarify, cause Paragon will inevitably jump off the deep end, smart people can believe irrational things, and unintelligent people can believe rational things. Ben Carson is a decent example: he's a neurosurgeon and it is intuitive that that class of people will be smarter than most. He's also a homophobic asshat that believes homosexuality is a choice. Smart man, has stupid beliefs. See how the irrational belief can be separated from those people who believe them.
EDIT 3: And here we go,
It's completely useless in theology. If anything, it's a shot in the foot. "God did it" is a far simpler explanation for the creation of the universe than just about anything else.
Occam's razor is not purely about the simplest answer winning out, it is about the one that requires the least amount of outside complications. For example, let's say you're walking through a forest and you come across a charred tree stump in the middle of a field, and there was a thunderstorm recently. You could say, simply "god did it." Three words, can be applied to everything. However, the problem is that this simple answer has the most outside complications: you have to create the existence of a god in the universe, that acts upon our world, that destroys trees, wanted to destroy this tree, and did so. The far simpler answer is not to bring in this complication of the existence of god, but to simply observe what we know about the world and how that could create the condition we found. As such, the notion that the tree got struck by lightning is far simpler than the idea that god did it, because it does not require the creation of supernatural entities with pyromanical tendencies, but a deferral to what we already know true about the world. In essence, the fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you conflate short answers with simple answers.