Comment on the argument itself: The philosophy teacher is not starting off with a solid foundation. For evidences, we no longer just base on the observation of the 5 human senses. The lack of evidence of god is simply lack of evidence, in whatsoever perception including extending our human observation techniques to the best of the current practice.
The counter argument itself is flawed because of the use of analogy. The falsehood of an analogy of a statement A does not imply the falsehood of statement A itself. There is NO correlation between the truth or otherwise between a statement and its analogy. Analogy is useful for a casual understanding. Logically, there is no link between an analogy and the statement.