It's a fact that natural existences are constricted by the necessity of evidence. Meaning evidence is necessary to prove an natural existence or natural occurrence, and if there's is no evidence the necessity of evidence is not met and thus it cannot exist or occur. An example of this Bigfoot, by definition he's a natural existence but since the necessity of sufficient evidence has not been met he has been deemed as "imaginary" and does not exist.
Atheists tend to use the burden of proof on supernatural entities, implying that this entity is constricted by the necessity of evidence. Yet the necessity of evidence is something relative to the material or natural reality. Why would we even assume that the supernatural reality is in concordance with this method? I have three premises that I need to help evauting:
Prove that the necessity of evidence applies to the supernatural reality, meaning you need to prove supernatural existences are constricted by necessity of evidence like natural existences are.
Prove that the supernatural reality is tangible and observable and thus should have no excuse for not having "evidence" like the natural reality. In other words prove that elements of the supernatural reality are even compatible with the necessity of evidence (tangibility and observation)
Prove that the supernatural reality is concordance by the laws of the natural world, and thus should have no reason of incompatibility with our methods and laws (laws of physics etc.)
How would we answer these premises?