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

[Theo Zacharias]

I'm just about to sleep when I see your post. So this will be my last post until next week.

@theo, you are sooo confused. Absence of evidence thing only applies if you don't claim that your god has evidence.

But if your god affects the world in anyway, it must generate some form of evidence. So absence of evidence is evidence of your god's inability to affect this world.

In a clinical trial, if a drug does not demonstrate efficacy, the absence of efficacy is evidence that the drug cannot perform.

If you claim that god doesn't affect the world in anyway, then that's another story.

If you read my previous post or my religious view, I don't claim that there is any evidence of God existence.

Btw, I don't agree that if God affects the world in *anyway*, then it must generate scientific evidence. One of the criteria of scientific evidence is reproducibility. God can affect the world but not affecting it in the same way, hence it's not reproducible. For example there are many testimony about God's miracles. I'm sure you've heard. But as far as I know, none of them is reproducible, hence it's not considered to be a valid scientific evidence for miracle (it can be a fraud).

Your example of clinical trial above is a valid scientific evidence based on the absence of efficacy because the experiment is reproducible.

Based on your posting above, I have no doubt that you have further argument that may refute my argument above. Unfortunately I can't response until next week. I'm sorry again.
This time I'm really going...