"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Until we have evidence to the contrary accepting "god does not exist" as the default hypothesis is the only logical course of action. Arguing for the existence of a god is positing a being which according to our knowledge is not only not neccessary but in some ways looks to be contrary to our knowledge of how the universe. In order to accept that there is a god sufficient evidence needs to be given. So far theists have given fuck all evidence.

Asserting that god doesn't exist is as scientifically valid at the moment as asserting phlogiston doesn't exist.