"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Asmodee]

Perhaps none of you have noticed my signature line in which the evidence for the existence of God has been plainly stated. Evidence means that which is evident. Evidence is data about the world used to support a conclusion. You may disagree with the conclusion I accept as a valid interpretation of the data. I understand and welcome that disagreement. I believe that people can apply reason to simple observations (things clearly and plainly evident) about the world and draw conclusions about an important issue, namely whether there is a Divine aspect to reality.

I carefully stated proposition 2 as "The proposition that god(s) exist is not true," as opposed to "The proposition that god(s) exist is false." That allows one to take the 'I don't know' position which would be a kind of state of innocence of someone has not had a chance to consider the possibility of God(s) existence. Many of you are not in any such state of innocence and haven't been for quite a long time. Those of you how say "no evidence" have taken a stance with respect to the proposition: There is no evidence for god(s).

I just read your signature (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "signature line") for the first time.  You are confusing "evidence" with "argument".  Your signature is an "argument" for the existence of God, not "evidence" for its existence.  If you change out "God" for "An intelligent, living universe", that's all it takes to make it "evidence" for a living, intelligent universe.  That makes it an argument, not evidence.

You are also claiming something is "observably evident" simply because you believe it to be so, but that does not make it so.  Most of the evidence for evolution is not "observably evident" to the average person not educated to understand the data, in no small part due to the fact that most of the "evidence" cannot be seen in a hundred lifetimes of observation, much less one.  If you watched a rock in a cave your entire life it would be "observably evident" that rocks never change or move, but it wouldn't be true.  And, in fact, your definition of "evidence" is just plain wrong as it uses the word "evidence" to define "evident".  And, in fact, evidence is not just that which we can observe for ourselves, but the "available body of facts or information" in its entirety.  By limiting "evidence" only to that which is observable you actually cut out most of the facts.

But the biggest problem with the whole thing is substituting "evidence" where you should be using "argument".  Clearly it isn't so "evident" if any two people looking at it have a high chance of reaching different conclusions.  What that means is that it is not "evident" at all, you're simply claiming it is.

---

Gotta agree with Steve here.  "God does not exist" is an assertion, which requires evidence of its own to support it - not simply a lack of evidence for the contrary.  The null hypothesis in this situation is rejecting both the assertion "God exists" and the assertion "God does not exist."  This, simply, is (weak) atheism, which is what I hold to.

While "God does not exist" may be an assertion it is still unreasonable to ask for evidence to support it for the simply matter that things which don't exist are not there to leave behind any evidence that they don't exist.  That's why claims of non-existence get kind of sticky.  Yes, technically it is an assertion, but you can not both ask for evidence something does not exist while also choosing not to except lack of evidence of existence.  Lack of evidence for existing is actually the only evidence even possible for a claim like the existence of a given deity.  Hell, even if you built a time machine and went back through all of history and proved, point by point, that every miraculous account in the Bible was false you would still only be presenting "lack of evidence" that the miracles happened because you couldn't bring video of an event not happening.

Actually, I can sum up what you're asking in a single, ridiculous sentence.  "I'm not gay and I have a picture of me not being gay to prove it!"  Figure out what's wrong with that statement and you'll figure out what's wrong with asking for evidence for non-existence other than lack of evidence of existence.