Yet you do assert something. You assert "God does not exist".
There being no evidence isn't valid evidence against the existence of something. There is no evidence that there is a larger star than VY Canis Majoris, but that doesn't mean a larger star doesn't exist somewhere. When we find the evidence, it becomes evidence in favour of the larger star, but until then we cannot say anything about its existence.
Your argument is an atheist version of the "God of the gaps", except instead of God existing in all the "gaps" of knowledge, whenever we close a gap, you say "See, there's still no evidence of God, therefore he doesn't exist".
As for your last sentence, repeating the words "theory", "basis", and "existence" doesn't help a person reading it. Could you rephrase so I know what you are talking about?
There being no evidence isn't valid evidence against the existence of something. There is no evidence that there is a larger star than VY Canis Majoris, but that doesn't mean a larger star doesn't exist somewhere. When we find the evidence, it becomes evidence in favour of the larger star, but until then we cannot say anything about its existence.
Your argument is an atheist version of the "God of the gaps", except instead of God existing in all the "gaps" of knowledge, whenever we close a gap, you say "See, there's still no evidence of God, therefore he doesn't exist".
As for your last sentence, repeating the words "theory", "basis", and "existence" doesn't help a person reading it. Could you rephrase so I know what you are talking about?
