I think it would be in poor etiquette if I neglected to introduce this topic before discussing it. However, I would not spend much time doing so because if you are unfamiliar with the burden of proof topic, this issue is irrelevant to you.
God's existence has been proudly embraced by some and mocked by others. Men have murdered other men because they could not agree about the nature and essence of God. While there are still many terribly misguided folks who believe that God wishes them to commit evil, I think the modern western man has escaped the trenches of such a poor theological position. Now, the question 'Does God Exist?' can be civilly answered by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and indeed, our atheist friends, and nobody will be hanged after the discussion.
For those of us who answer, "Yes, God does exist," we understand that if we are to submit this statement, we ought to be able to defend it if and when it is challenged. Similarly, I contend that for those who submit the statement, "No, God does not exist," ought to be able to defend it when challenged. In contrast, many of them believe that if all of the evidence for God's existence fails, they are justified in concluding that God does not exist.
But in underlying partnership with this comes an additional question, namely, does the absence of evidence for God's existence suggest evidence of absence? The opposition replies 'yes' but often does so without adequate justification. This is crucial question, because if absence of evidence is in fact not evidence of absence, then even if all of the evidence fails, it could still be the case that God exists.
Therefore, if the opposition is to adequately justify answering 'no' to the question of God's existence, they must either demonstrate that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, or provide a different form of evidence of absence.
I am willing to concede that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But I have simply never heard a strong argument or even a coherent argument in favor of it. In fact, I think I have a knock-down argument against it.
Imagine a possible world wherein God exists, but He does not provide empirical evidence of His existence. Unless there exists a logical contradiction between God's existence and His neglect of providing the empirical evidence, then God's existence is possible even in a world with absolutely no evidence of His existence.
Therefore those who maintain that in the actual world, there is absolutely no evidence of God's existence must face the problem of demonstrating alternative evidence of absence.
Now, this does not mean that anybody is required to believe in God. They can, as they have sheepishly described, 'lack a belief in God'. But in the absence of evidence of evidence of absence, they may not jump from a lack of belief to the assertion that God does not exist, except by faith.
This can be summarized by offering two options to the opposition.
1 - Provide a logical contradiction between God's existence and the absence of evidence for His existence.
2 - Provide evidence of absence.
To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here