Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Theo Zacharias]

Btw, above is your original posting that started our discussion.
When you said "it must generate some form of evidence", which one did you mean:
(1) it must generate some form of evidence *that we can detect with our current technology*
(2) it must generate some form of evidence, *but we may not be able to detect it with our current technology*.

Don't forget that after you claim that, you said that the absence of evidence is evidence of God not affecting this world. This is the conclusion of your claim.
The conclusion only makes sense if you meant to say (1). If you meant to say (2), then the absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence because there may be evidence but we are unable to detect it with our currently technology.

I meant both, evidence is evidence. My claim is not temporally bound btw, in the future if they detect something then my claim still stands, it'll lead to a different conclusion. In the past, technology wasn't advanced enough and people had a different conclusion (that god interferes), they still concluded based on the evidence at hand.

Based on the evidence at hand right now, I conclude that god is not interfering with the world.

The evidence leads to a conclusion, you cannot ignore the absence of evidence and claim the opposite and say you're doing the more honest thing. You admit to the possibility of both, but conclude what the evidence supports. The possibility thing is something religious people like to hold on to, it's not common practice to consider far fetched possibilities, only probabilities, which is why I didn't think to even bring that up.

I don't ignore the absence of evidence. I have said many time that, as far as I know, there is no known evidence that God exists or that God affecting the world.
What I'm trying to defend is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Reading your statement above, you agree that God can affect the world *but we may not be able to detect it with our current technology*. Do you agree with this or not?
If you agree, then your conclusion is unfounded because there may be already evidence, but we simply cannot detect it with our current technology.
Note that I said, "there *may* be", not "there *must* be".