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

[pineapplebunnybounce]

You were talking about miracles, yes? I'm telling you it can be studied and analyzed. You're not understanding the reproducible part. It isn't the miracle that has to be reproduced, it's the analysis. If the miracle doesn't happen again, what we say is there aren't enough study samples. But if there are enough study samples (in reality there are multiple miracle claims that are very similar), then the analysis can be done. By controlling for confounding factors we group people with similar properties together such that they are "repeats" of each other. I don't know why I'm explaining this to you since you are so bent on giving god properties that cannot be studied. But this is how many scientific studies are performed. They have their weaknesses but IMO superior to lab studies for this type of investigation.

If you want to go with what you just said. Which is god affects the world in undetectable ways. Then I can say god doesn't affect the world at all. Those are 2 theories that can be generated from the same evidence: which is no evidence of interference. But your theory assumes god. Now you need to justify why it makes sense to make this assumption.

Edit: ok, there are more than 2 theories than can be generated. There are multiple: aliens/christian god/allah/hindu gods/thor/poseidon/zeus/ares/buddha/Gandalf/etc. etc. are interfering the world in undetectable ways. So you REALLY need a justification to say it's your god.

You're wrong if you said my argument assumes God. What I said is if God exists and if He wants to, then He can affect this world without leaving any evidence that we can detect. Note that this argument does not require assumption that God exists. It can be true even if God does not exist. For example, proposition "if Superman exists then he can fly" can be true even if Superman does not exist.

Ok, so you're backing away from the miracle claims that you first brought up to say that they cannot be studied.

Also, don't forget that you are the one who claim that if God exist and affects the world in *anyway*, it must generate some form of evidence. What I'm doing is to refute this claim by arguing that maybe it generates some evidences but maybe not. I don't agree that it *must* generate evidence because it's possible that it does not generate any evidences.
Now, do you still hold to this claim especially the *anyway" part? Or you want to modify the *anyway* part?

No, I'm not backing away from that part. It must generate evidence, whether or not our technology is advanced enough to detect this evidence, it must generate evidence. If you put a cup in front of me, and I say I affected it, but in fact I did not at all, can you call me a liar or are you going to say I affected in but did not change anything at all? Which is what you're trying to say here. If god interfered and produced chances, evidence is generated. If he interfered but everything remained unchanged, he did not interfere.

I'm sure you realize how fast our technology advances in recent years. Can you imagine what kind of technology we will have in 100 years? How about in 1000 years? In million years?
Are you honestly said that you can't believe that a God or alien natural beings with technology far more advanced than what we have now cannot affect our world without leaving any evidence that can be detected by our current technology if they want to? You haven't answered this questions before.

Ok, I just did. But I think you missed my point, which is, there is no reason to think any of this is going on without evidence. And even if you want to push for that and say SOMETHING has to be interfering simply because it's theoretically possible, that possibility is not limited to your god.