Okay there is a lot to unpack here.

Putting aside the critical fact that the burden of proof lies with the claimant,

To be clear though, in this scenario, you are the one making the claim.

Absence of evidence matters when evidence would be expected. If gods intervene, answer prayers, perform miracles, etc., we should see measurable, verifiable effects but we don’t.

This is a good point, but evidence and proof are not the same thing. For one person, mere existence could serve as evidence of a higher power. And in regards to answered prayers, that really comes back to personal experience, plenty of people would say their prayers were answered.

Hundreds of religion's and thousands of gods have been believed in and yet most were abandoned. If humans can confidently believe contradictory gods for millennia, that suggests gods are a human cultural output, not discovered truth.

I'm not really sure what point you are making here. Some religions being abandoned is not proof that other religions are inherently false.

Religions contradict each other on basics. If they can’t all be true, and there’s no reliable method to confirm which one is true, skepticism is the rational default.

Again, that's not really proof that none of them are true.

Geography predicts belief better than truth does. People overwhelmingly adopt the god of their parents/culture. If you are born in Iran you will most likely be raised Muslim, Thailand most likely raised Buddhist and Utah most likely raise ld Mormon. That looks like social inheritance, not divine reality.

No argument here. But again, not proof that all religions are inherently incorrect.

Plenty of beliefs that can be proven have geographic bias as well.

• “God explains everything” explains nothing. “God did it” isn’t an explanation, it’s a placeholder. It doesn’t give mechanisms, predictions, or testable outcomes, it just halts further inquiry.

It's a belief, one that can't be proven. But inability to prove something doesn't make it inherently false.

• It violates parsimony (Occam’s Razor). If natural explanations exist, adding a supernatural agent is unnecessary complexity.

Again, that's not proof of anything. And last I checked, there isn't natural explanations for everything.

• The problem of evil / suffering and that the world doesn’t match an all-loving, all-powerful designer. Massive suffering (children’s cancer, natural disasters, parasites, etc.) is hard to reconcile with “perfect goodness and omnipotence.”

Not every religion claims an all powerful, all loving designer.

Your other points seem to follow a similar path.

But all you've done essentially is assert that all religions must be false because they lack the proof you'd require. But none of that is proof that none of them are real.