"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Minimalist]

A little while ago I was debating about the term "God doesn't exist" and someone said that one says it because it's easier, instead of saying something completely unneeded like, "Due to complete lack of evidence, a god concept should be thought of as highly improbable and therefore should be exist. That got me thinking. Would the "claim" "God doesn't exist" be thought of as more of a conclusion that God doesn't exist, i.e. "Due to lack of evidence, one can safely conclude that a theistic God shouldn't exist," which would be shortened to, "God doesn't exist"? Thanks in advance.

I would say "God does not exist" is a claim. What an atheist usually inductively reasons is something like:

1. There is no (or insufficient) evidence for God
2. Therefore God does not exist.

However, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise because even if there was no evidence for God, a person could not conclude with anything near certainty there is no God because our knowledge is limited to examination of the natural world and we lack the capacity to examine any supernatural world. To fix it:

1` There is no (or insufficient) evidence for God
2` Therefore God probably does not exist.

So, "God does not exist" is a claim. "God probably does not exist" would be a conclusion.

You're going to hurt your back jumping through all those hoops to justify your belief in nothing.