This fallacy is often employed in the criticism of a new scientific theory, by arguing that the theory is false because a phenomenon it predicts has not yet been observed. More formally:
1. P has not been observed
2. Therefore P does not exist
3. Therefore the theory predicting P is false
God has not been observed. Therefore God does not exist. This is your argument. You just defined your own fallacy. Well done
There is no burden. You can either believe or not believe.The burden of proof is on those who believe there is a God.
You have no factual data God doesn't exist so your argument is also based on faith.Not those who do not admit it as a fact without any evidence. It's not about "faith". It's about "evidence". You say there is a God. I say sure, show me proof that can withstand scrutiny. You can't. So I conclude that there isn't. Welcome to the world of rational thought.
Funny how you speak of rational thought and accuse me of a fallacy that fits your own belief system