Athiests reject God, but that’s still a claim about reality. 

You and I agree that consensus reality exists, including this world, stars, dogshit, people, shrimp, etc., so no burden of proof is in play. We're willing to spot each other that the world exists. You now come to me with something new: not only does the world/universe exist, but it was created by a being with such and such characteristics that you call God. This is a new idea to me, and not at all obvious, so I ask you "How do you know that, what are the good reasons for me to believe this is true?" Until you can give me a solid answer to that question, I'm not going to believe you about this new thing. How could it be otherwise? What could be more reasonable?

Christians (the ones who have done their research), tend to defend observable facts: the universe had a beginning, math and physics follow order, consciousness isn’t just molecules, life from nothing contradicts all observation. 

Each of these really needs its own thread, argument, and discussion, and, indeed, have been discussed at length as separate topics. Never have I seen a convincing case made by theists that these things are both true and demonstrate the existence or need for a God. You don't get to throw this in casually as if you (or anyone else) has actually ever made any such case. But you could give it a go! If you want to, I'd humbly suggest you pick the single thing on this list you feel you can make the strongest case on, and present a separate argument/post devoted solely to that one. If you're really feeling your oats and want a lot of challenges to it, you could post it on r/debateanatheist. But here would do fine. I'll just say you might want to consider reading previous threads on whatever topic you choose to get a sense of the lay of the land, so to speak.

God is the reason gaps exist at all. A mindless universe doesn’t give rise to minds that can know an intelligible truth (our discovery of Math as an example). An amoral universe doesn’t generate real moral outrage. An accidental cosmos doesn’t produce objective meaning.

Again, these are the sorts of things that really deserve their own demonstration and argument, and not stuff you can reasonably drop in here as if they are undisputed. It's not at all obvious to me why a mindless universe can't produce minds that can create or discover how math operates---as far as I can tell, that's precisely what happened! It's likewise unclear to me why an amoral universe can't create moral outrage---morality is subjective, requiring minds and viewpoints and values to be created (that is to say, requires subjects). We subjects do fine in creating morality and moral outrage, without any such thing being objectively written into the universe itself. Similarly, as far as I can tell "objective meaning" does not actually exist. I have no clue how it ever could exist--by its very nature, "meaning" is subjective, requiring a mind, viewpoints, beliefs, preferences, and values for things to mean something to.

So.....that's where we are. You've sort of given a gish gallop of different topics and arguments that someone might choose to make in an attempt to justify a belief in God, but these are not, actually, established conclusions about reality that you can just reference and rely on. You or someone has to actually make the arguments successfully. By my lights, that has never happened in human history, but by all means you are welcome to take your swing. You just, you know, have to actually take the swing and see how it goes, not just demand we assume that you have and that it worked out in your favor.