The existence of God: Who does the burden of proof actually lie on? The one making the claim God exists? Or the one denying it?

This thread will this burden of proof VERY MUCH is on the person denying God's existence, and that they should rigorously be probed for evidence.

We are surrounded by both simple and complex appliances and tools all around us, that have been clearly designed, and we know that they have inventors and makers.

Even when we come across devices we never knew existed, we ALWAYS assume they are designed/created.

Now imagine this:

You're stuck on an abandoned island with a friend,and come across a weird looking machine you've never seen before. You put sticks into it, and they come out in a finely grinded powder form.
You instinctively wonder who must have made this.

That's the rational thing to ask. Not once would you assume it just sprung into existence, out of the blue. There is clearly some basic functions that were designed.

Now you get into an argument with your friend.

They laugh at your for assuming this had a creator, and ask you for evidence.

You think they're being ridiculous and ask them how can this NOT have a creator? However they're adamant, and you tell them it's clearly been designed, it has some complexity.

You then ask them for any evidence to indicate that it just sprung out by chance. And they laugh and tell you that you're making the claim that it was created, so YOU prove it.

See how bizarre this seems?

Now think of the universe which is infinitely more complex than any old machine. It has structure, organization, precise cosmic architecture. The precise set of laws to support life.

If these ratios were even off by a fraction of a fraction, planetary life would be impossible.

Now you tell me which of the two makes more sense.

Option A: A creator, as is evident by the purposeful design

Option B: It randomly just came into being.

I think it's pretty obvious.