"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[Mister Agenda]

I was thinking last night about "God does not exist" as the null hypothesis (and therefore is not an assertion). Since God is not of the natural world (he is supernatural), it is possible that his existence cannot be known even if every inch of our reality was examined. If this fact can potentially be unknowable, then "God does not exist" is not the null hypothesis. At best the default position is "we can't know".

The default position on our current ability to know with certainty that no possible version of a supernatural deity is actually real is that 'we can't know'. The null hypothesis on the matter is that God doesn't exist.

The null hypothesis for rabbit populations influencing hemline trends is that rabbit populations don't affect hemline trends. The null hypothesis for human contributions to global warming is that humans don't contribute to global warming. For purposes of 'what is a null hypothesis', we're treating the null hypothesis for God's existence exactly like any other null hypothesis.