Part of me would say that I’m not sure what people mean when they assert that there is no evidence that God exists. A more blunt part of me feels that most of the people making the assertion don’t themselves know what they mean.
In fact, this is not so much a suspicion as what more than a dozen proponents of the claim have personally told me. The overwhelming response to “what standard (or definition) of evidence is attached to that claim?” is “I don’t know; you tell me”.
This makes the assertion literally nonsense. That is, a statement doesn’t have content if its key terms simply aren’t defined. They may as well be meaningless strings of letters, and stating “there is no [undefined term here] for God” shouldn’t strike anyone as much of an argument.
But I think the theist can do even better here. I think she can show that the statement is either irrelevantly true or demonstrably false.
When the statement is made, it would seem to mean that there is no scientific evidence that God exists. Whether or not that is true, the idea that there is no physical evidence for the non-physical is hardly mind-blowing. Rather, it is a simple category error. It has no more weight than saying that there is no mathematical proof that Winston Churchill was the Prime minister of Great Britain, or that there is no grammatical evidence of cosmic expansion.
But, taken more broadly, the claim is simply false. That is, if the claim is taken broadly enough to be relevant to metaphysical issues such as God’s existence, then the metaphysical arguments for God’s existence is such evidence.
We can debate whether or not the evidence is sufficient, but the bold declaration that there is no evidence for God’s existence is simply out of touch with the facts.