It is not possible to prove that something does not exist. If you doubt this, prove to me that my invisible dog doesn't exist. You can't do it. No matter what you say, I can just tell you that you're not looking hard enough, or that you don't have the right sensing equipment, or that you're part of a conspiracy to pretend he doesn't exist when he does, and so on. It is a basic principle of logic that you cannot prove that something does not exist.
However, there is also no direct evidence for God. Sunsets and hummingbirds do not prove the existence of a guy in the sky, because anyone with any other story could also incorporate those things into a different story to account for them. For example, I could say, "My invisible dog dreamed a beautiful dream one afternoon, conjuring up the world around us. And that's why we have sunsets and hummingbirds." Clearly, merely tying things that exist around us into a story that attempts to explain them does not make the story true.
So then, with no direct evidence for God, and the impossibility of proving against, is it a 50/50 scenario? Not really. Think about my imaginary dog. You can't prove he doesn't exist. And I can cite hummingbirds and sunsets as proof of his existence. But do you believe in him? Probably not. Why? Because normal, healthy people require actual direct evidence to believe something is real. The default position is not to believe extravagant claims.
Therefore, I think logic weighs for a position of non-belief.
SNG
