Could Batman beat Superman?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Could Batman beat Superman?". Your opponent's style: Yoda

The idea of god is questionable due to contradictions in the bible, and overall because there are better theories to explain natural phenomenons than assuming a god was behind it.

You're confusing two entirely separate arguments and hoping no one notices. Biblical inconsistencies don't touch whether God exists, they just mean a specific text has problems. That's not evidence against theism itself, just against literalism. As for "better theories," physics describing how phenomena work doesn't explain why there's anything to describe at all. Your naturalism assumes the universe simply exists without justification, then calls that rational. That's a faith claim, not a logical victory. Why should brute existence require no explanation while God's existence supposedly does? You've just shifted the burden without addressing it.

Since theism makes the claim that god exists, the burden of proof is on them.

Wrong direction. You're claiming naturalism is true, which equally requires proof. The burden doesn't vanish just because theism speaks first. Both positions make metaphysical claims about reality's foundation, so both need justification. Saying "prove God exists" while offering zero argument for why the universe exists without a cause is intellectual laziness dressed up as epistemology. You're not avoiding a burden, you're hiding behind a rhetorical trick. If theists must prove God, you must prove the universe self-explains. Either both carry the load or neither does. Which is it?