>May I ask, however, why it doesn't apply both ways? Why does DD have to "prove" his viewpoint for you to accept it?

It depends what you mean by accept. I accept that there is a possibility that our universe could be created by some creative intelligence.

However, I don't believe that this is, or is not the case. Doug does, and he uses that belief (along with many more explicit supernatural claims) as the most important premise in the majority of the arguments he engages in. If he want me to accept his arguments, it is important for him to prove that premise to me.

Does that answer your question, or am I missing your point?