The thing is, though, that up until now, no one has given you or told you anything tangible to make you believe the existence around us is a false one. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with whoever is assertng this. However with religion, there are alternative, tangible answers for some of the questions it posits, none of which were correctly answered by religion itself. What created the universe? The Big Bang. How did humans get here? Evolution. There are scientific answers that have been proved through scientific method. What you are using is known as the un-falsifiable claim. That because it can't be disproved, that makes it okay to believe it. This is patently ridiculous in many ways, not the least of which is that it would mean would have to entertain every little possibility that a child comes up with. An argument's already been made about the Celestial Tea Pot: you can't prove it isn't there, so we should all worship it! I understand where you're coming from, though. It's been human nature for the past few millions of years to seek answers, and if we don't find answers, we make up our own. But please enlighten me: what axioms based in unjustifiable claims have been useful at all?
Though personally, I don't think the idea of a god should even be considered scientifically, Occam's Razor and all that.
*cracks knuckles*
Things that give cause to doubt the reality of the world around us.Are you a lucid dreamer? If not, then you have existed in a world you know is not real, while believing it to be real. Only once you exited the dream did you realize the falsehood of that reality. There is nothing to suggest this cannot apply to what you are doing right now. In addition to that, assuming we ever invent Matrix esque virtual reality, there will be yet another situation where we cannot distinguish "real" from "fake."
To claim that the world around us is self evident is a circular argument. Asking for "tangible" evidence for solipsism is like asking for religious evidence for atheism. You cannot defend empiricism with empiricism, any more than you can defend god with god.
Burden of proof.It lies on whoever is making an assertion. It is NOT on whoever's making a "positive" assertion, as a "positive" assertion has no meaningful definition (I can flip around any argument from "positive" to "negative," and vice versa, but just changing around the wording). So long as one is making a claim that they have knowledge of something, it is their responsibility to provide evidence for it. It doesn't matter what that knowledge is or what it applies to.
The natural existing with or without the supernatural.The natural (empirical reality) can exist with or without the supernatural. It can be entirely self contained with nothing outside it... and it might not. All of science can fit into any of the infinite religions that allow for it (nothing science can ever prove will go against Deism, for example).
The fallacy here is thinking that disproving one religious theory disproves all. You can tear Christianity to shreds, but that has no effect on Hinduism. You can tear all the world's religions to shreds, even, but there are infinite other possibilities that are unaffected.
The unfalsifiable.By definition, these things cannot be proven false. So claiming that by being unfalsifiable, they are false, is a fallacy I don't think I have to explain.
But the consequence of this is yes, you do have to entertain any random thought that is logically consistent. Welcome to reality. You're not on the African savannah anymore where survival is the only thing you need to care about. However, that doesn't mean you have to believe everything that comes to mind... since the unfalsifiable cannot be proven one way or the other, it by extension has no effect on the world around you. It does nothing "tangible," or empirical. So, whatever conclusion you make, yes or no, true or false, makes no difference to your life here. If it did, it would no longer be unfalsifiable.
So if you want to blanketly say "no" to the unfalsifiable (except empiricism, of course), that's fine. Saves a lot of trouble entertaining idle thoughts. But no claim of knowledge can be made without fallacy.
Inductive arguments.Inductive arguments can only be made with evidence to support them. Without evidence, you can make no claim based on any inductive argument, be it occam's razor or whatever. They are, after all, simply educated guesses with varying degrees of certainly (some getting ridiculously close to 100% but never quite making it).
Any inductive argument made on the unfalsifiable is an immediate fallacy, as there is no evidence to support it. If there was, it wouldn't be unfalsifiable. If you literally have no knowledge relating to a celestial teapot (which you actually do since that's a horrible analogy, but nevermind) you literally cannot make a claim one way or another beyond simple hypothesis, with no hypothesis being more well founded than another.
I think that's everything. In the future, don't defend empiricism with empirical arguments, because that is just as ridiculous and defending a religion with religious arguments. If you do that, you're just proving your opponent right about your unresolved cognitive dissonance.