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

[Tonus]

I do not understand why so many atheists simply fall back and say you can't prove there is no god,

I think it's pretty easy to understand. As you said yourself, it's a fallback position. If you can't prove that god exists but you want to believe it anyway, you can deflect inquiry by trying to turn the tables. As I pointed out to jstrodel, a child who believes in the Tooth Fairy has more evidence for his claim than the person who believes in a god that takes an active role in the lives of human beings.

Imagine if that child did not want to give up his belief in the Tooth Fairy? His parents could explain every step they took in creating the impression, but the child could easily reject them. He didn't see them take the tooth from under his pillow, and he may even consider it preposterous that they could move his pillow without waking him. He didn't see them placing money under the pillow. All he knows is that they told him what the Tooth Fairy does, and it happened exactly as they said... why are they changing their story now? And so on.

If you want to believe something badly enough, you'll grab on to any possibility, no matter how unlikely or even how absurd it may seem.

[Theo Zacharias]

No, I'm not saying that small change should not lead to a bigger change. I'm saying that our current technology *may* not be able to detect that small/big change.

Do you agree that all significant changes can be detected because if it is significant, we'll feel it. If it doesn't significantly impact life as it is, we don't know to even look for it? Or are you saying that things can significantly impact us in ways where we don't even detect the impact? What we know about something has never affected its ability to impact us. That's what I was trying to say. (BTW, ancient china is thousands of years ago, not 100). People speculated about thunders and lightnings because they impacted reality, now that we understand how they do so doesn't mean it ceases to have an effect. The effect remains the same. You're trying to say that even the effect is undetectable. In which case i can only say it must be something insignificant to begin with.

I'm trying to say that our current technology may not be able to detect the small/big effect uniquely attribute to God.
Note that the context of the discussion is about evidence that God, if exists, affect or does not affect the world. You claim that the absence of evidence that God affects the world is evidence of absence, i.e. evidence that God, if exists, does not affect the world. To show that God exists or not, first you have to identify the small/big effect that uniquely attribute to God, then you have to show that our currently technology is able to detect that small/big effect. If the technology detects the change, then it is an evidence that God exists and affect the world. If not, then it's an evidence that God does not exist (or if exists, He does not affect our world). I argue before, that our current technology may not be able to detect that small/big effect. Now, I will add more argument to it that the identity of the effect that uniquely attribute to God is not even clear.

I'll give you an example in science where absence of evidence is evidence of absence: the existence of static luminiferous aether. Luminiferous aether, as it originally conceived, was supposed to be the medium for propagation of light in vacuum. If light cannot propagate in vacuum, then the light from the sun cannot reach earth. The fact that the light from the sun can reach earth has a big effect to us. Can we detect the effect? Of course we can. But that is not an evidence that luminiferous aether exists because the effect is not uniquely attribute to luminiferous aether (it can be explained by theorize that light is an electromagnetic wave and electromagnetic waves don't need any medium to propagate). One of the effect that uniquely attribute to luminiferous aether (at least for its static version) is aether wind effect. Many experiments were carried out in the late 1800s to test for this "aether wind" effect. The most famous is Michelson–Morley experiment where Michelson & Morley developed a technology that should be able to detect this effect with high accuracy. The experiment, which has been called the most famous failed experiment in history by many, didn't detect the effect. Many scientists interpreted this result as an evidence that static luminiferous aether does not exist (or if it exists, it does not have any effect in our world). So in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

To make my point more clear, I'll give an opposite example in science where absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence: the existence of graviton. Graviton is a hypothetical particle that mediates the force of gravitation. Can we detect the effect of gravitation? Of course we can. But that's not the effect we're looking for. We're looking for the effect that uniquely attribute to graviton. Even this is not so clear at the moment. Gravitation is not the effect because it can be explained with the curvature of space-time in general relativity. Even gravitational waves (that is never directly detected so far) is also not the effect because general relativity also predicts its existence. Graviton should interact with atoms, but the cross section of this interaction is extremely low. It's not even clear how to distinguish this interaction with the one from background of neutrinos. Even if we can do that, we still don't have any technology at the moment that can detect this effect because of the extremely low cross section for the interaction. This is why the failure to detect graviton so far (absence of evidence) is not interpreted as evidence that graviton does not exist or that its existence is improbable (evidence of absence) by most physicists.

So if you want to show that God, if exists, does not affect our world *in any way* (or that God does not exist or its existence is very improbable) by using argument that absence of evidence is evidence of absence in the the realm of science, you have to first identify the effect that uniquely attribute to God (e.g. like aether wind effect for static luminiferous aether), then show that we have a technology that can detect this effect with high accuracy (e.g. like the Michelson–Morley interferometer for static luminiferous aether), and the technology failed to detect the effect. Without this, you have no basis to conclude that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Btw, I have to go right away this time. Not sure if I can be online again next week.
But if I can, I will response to any posts directed to me at that time. Sorry again for any inconvenience because of this.

[LostLocke]

So if you want to show that God, if exists, does not affect our world *in any way* (or that God does not exist or its existence is very improbable) by using argument that absence of evidence is evidence of absence in the the realm of science, you have to first identify the effect that uniquely attribute to God (e.g. like aether wind effect for static luminiferous aether)

...
...
...
What?

[Bad Writer]

Yeah, I know what he's saying: "Eat my unverifiable bullshit."

[LostLocke]

Oh....
I'm glad that was cleared up.

[Bad Writer]

Only way to clean up bullshit properly is with ample amounts of wet wipes.

[Jackalope]

Only way to clean up bullshit properly is with ample amounts of wet wipes.

Hose and a shovel works for me. Wear your boots and mind your step.

[Bad Writer]

You must deal with literally tons of it then.

[Angrboda]

I'm trying to say that our current technology may not be able to detect the small/big effect uniquely attribute to God.
Note that the context of the discussion is about evidence that God, if exists, affect or does not affect the world. You claim that the absence of evidence that God affects the world is evidence of absence, i.e. evidence that God, if exists, does not affect the world. To show that God exists or not, first you have to identify the small/big effect that uniquely attribute to God, then you have to show that our currently technology is able to detect that small/big effect. If the technology detects the change, then it is an evidence that God exists and affect the world. If not, then it's an evidence that God does not exist (or if exists, He does not affect our world). I argue before, that our current technology may not be able to detect that small/big effect. Now, I will add more argument to it that the identity of the effect that uniquely attribute to God is not even clear....

---

I'll give you an example in science where absence of evidence is evidence of absence: the existence of static luminiferous aether. Luminiferous aether, as it originally conceived, was supposed to be the medium for propagation of light in vacuum. If light cannot propagate in vacuum, then the light from the sun cannot reach earth. The fact that the light from the sun can reach earth has a big effect to us. Can we detect the effect? Of course we can. But that is not an evidence that luminiferous aether exists because the effect is not uniquely attribute to luminiferous aether (it can be explained by theorize that light is an electromagnetic wave and electromagnetic waves don't need any medium to propagate). One of the effect that uniquely attribute to luminiferous aether (at least for its static version) is aether wind effect. Many experiments were carried out in the late 1800s to test for this "aether wind" effect. The most famous is Michelson–Morley experiment where Michelson & Morley developed a technology that should be able to detect this effect with high accuracy. The experiment, which has been called the most famous failed experiment in history by many, didn't detect the effect. Many scientists interpreted this result as an evidence that static luminiferous aether does not exist (or if it exists, it does not have any effect in our world). So in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

To make my point more clear, I'll give an opposite example in science where absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence: the existence of graviton. Graviton is a hypothetical particle that mediates the force of gravitation. Can we detect the effect of gravitation? Of course we can. But that's not the effect we're looking for. We're looking for the effect that uniquely attribute to graviton. Even this is not so clear at the moment. Gravitation is not the effect because it can be explained with the curvature of space-time in general relativity. Even gravitational waves (that is never directly detected so far) is also not the effect because general relativity also predicts its existence. Graviton should interact with atoms, but the cross section of this interaction is extremely low. It's not even clear how to distinguish this interaction with the one from background of neutrinos. Even if we can do that, we still don't have any technology at the moment that can detect this effect because of the extremely low cross section for the interaction. This is why the failure to detect graviton so far (absence of evidence) is not interpreted as evidence that graviton does not exist or that its existence is improbable (evidence of absence) by most physicists.

So if you want to show that God, if exists, does not affect our world *in any way* (or that God does not exist or its existence is very improbable) by using argument that absence of evidence is evidence of absence in the the realm of science, you have to first identify the effect that uniquely attribute to God (e.g. like aether wind effect for static luminiferous aether), then show that we have a technology that can detect this effect with high accuracy (e.g. like the Michelson–Morley interferometer for static luminiferous aether), and the technology failed to detect the effect. Without this, you have no basis to conclude that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Btw, I have to go right away this time. Not sure if I can be online again next week.
But if I can, I will response to any posts directed to me at that time. Sorry again for any inconvenience because of this.

---

"You sure have got a purty' mouth."

[LastPoet]

You must deal with literally tons of it then.

Duh, look at his green name.