The difference, as I understand it, is that in the case you are talking about, they are intentionally looking for evidence to support a claim that would definitely have evidence to support it. Finding no evidence to demonstrate that Jerusalem was a major city in the 10th century, when said evidence would undoubtedly exist if it were true... is, indeed, evidence that the claim is wrong.
In the case I brought up, there is no expectation of evidence to support the existence of god, so a lack of evidence to that effect does not qualify as evidence itself. They are not -looking- for god... they are looking for answers. The evidence does not point to the existence of god, but that was not what they were looking for. I see them as two completely different scenarios.
In the case I brought up, there is no expectation of evidence to support the existence of god, so a lack of evidence to that effect does not qualify as evidence itself. They are not -looking- for god... they are looking for answers. The evidence does not point to the existence of god, but that was not what they were looking for. I see them as two completely different scenarios.
