"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[SteveII]

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

Wrong Steve, "god doesn't exist" is the null hypothesis, because given the current evidence we live in a universe which has no need for a god to exist. The idea of god posits an extra being which doesn't agree with what we know of the universe, therefore that is the hypotesis which needs supporting evidence.

"God does not exist" would be the null hypothesis only if there were absolutely no evidence for God. If any evidence whatsoever is presented, the null hypothesis is rejected. There is evidence (it does not matter if you don't find it compelling) so the null hypothesis must be rejected. If the null hypothesis is rejected, "God does not exists" becomes a positive claim.