The lack of evidence for a god doesn't prove that god is not real, it simply makes it irrational to believe.
Realistically, if you input any other mythical being or god from past mythology in as a placeholder for today's mainstream gods, people would think the argument is silly, and would not be swayed to believe. So I am confused as to why people find it compelling when they here the story of a talking snake beguiling a rib-woman into eating fruit from a magic tree that gave her the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, and then being condemned for it for having done wrong that she couldn't have known was wrong before eating of the magic tree that the talking snake had beguiled her into eating from...
Just seems kind of nonsensical.
While the lack of evidence for his existence shows it impossible to prove God exists it does not mean he doesn't exist, it simply means we don't know. We can not say if God exists or not under the current circumstances, more research and evidence is needed to point to either direction.
Supposedly, the lack of evidence does not prove or disprove that God is real, for the fact that it is called faith for a reason. You are suppose to have faith that he is real, therefore if you believe in God, whether there is evidence or not, your faith states you undoubtedly believe he is real.
No. And the lack of evidence for an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire that lives in my garage doesn't prove that the dragon isn't real. That doesn't mean anyone should take the proposition seriously.
The time to accept the existence of something is when there is positive evidence to demonstrate its existence. The lack of evidence in a courtroom murder trial is not evidence that the accused is definitely innocent, merely that the available evidence is insufficient to prove them guilty.