What exactly does it mean to not have evidence of something? Is it functionally and exactly equivalent to having no reason to believe in something?
Let us take the example of God. Let us now imagine three events occurring.
Event A: I wake up tomorrow
Event B: I pray to God to help me pass an exam and I pass it.
Event C: I pray to God to get me to win a royal flush at the poker game that day. I win it.
For each of those events, I cannot think of a reason as to why that particular event implies that God exists or did anything. Each of them are explainable through natural causes. And yet, intuitively, even many disbelievers in God may claim that events B and C are still weak evidence for God compared to A even though it is negligible. In what sense could this be true if evidence is equivalent to having no reason to believe it?