The Null Hypothesis

[Ryft]

So by the null hypothesis, we would say god doesn't exist until proven to exist.

Ehh, no. That is the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. But hey, thanks for playing. (I'm seriously considering keeping track of who commits which fallacies and how often, for a Hall of Shame of a different sort.)

Smith is assumed to be innocent until otherwise demonstrated. I don't see a problem with that. And I have no idea what that has to do with any hypothesis.

The assumption of Smith's innocence is precisely the 'null hypothesis'. He is accused of a crime and, given probable cause, arrested and charged for it. But the criminal investigators and prosecuting attorneys do not pursue the case under the assumption of his guilt. To do so could have adverse effects on their collection of evidence and possibly overlook contradicting evidence. Rather, they work with something I think is analogous to the 'null hypothesis'—they assume he is innocent and try to find evidence to 'reject' or 'not reject' that hypothesis (which, as I said, is why the defendant is never pronounced 'innocent' but rather 'not guilty', because the evidence neither contradicted his innocence nor established it).

What does this have to do with God claims? Not a thing. You are as paranoid as Rhizomorph. It is about the 'null hypothesis' only and trying describe it in a way that anyone can understand (however imperfectly, given the nature of analogies). To say that God exists until proven otherwise is the exact same ad ignorantiam fallacy.