(August 25, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Theo Zacharias Wrote:(August 25, 2013 at 12:11 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Ok, so you're backing away from the miracle claims that you first brought up to say that they cannot be studied.
I never said that they cannot be studied. You're attacking a straw man here.
What I said is, maybe they cannot be studied and maybe they can. What you said is, we *must* be able to study it. Do you understand the difference here?
(August 25, 2013 at 12:11 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: 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.
Your analogy is totally incorrect. You said "in fact I did not at all", then it means, in you example, it is a fact that you did not affect the cup. In God situation, we don't know what the fact is. We don't know whether God affect the world or not, and we don't even know whether God exists or not.
(August 25, 2013 at 12:11 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: 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.
Again I must say that you are the one who make assertion here by claiming that if God exist and affects the world in *anyway*, it must generate some form of evidence. The burden of proof/evidence is on the person asserting a claim. You cannot defend your claim by saying that your opponent has no evidence that you're wrong.
I will ask my question again:
"If there is a natural alien beings with technology far more advanced than what we have now (say million years more advance), if they want to, do you think they can affect our world without leaving any evidence that can be detected by our current technology"
Please answer this, yes or no?
(August 25, 2013 at 12:11 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: 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.
Yes, I agree if something is affecting our world in a way that cannot be detected by our technology, the possibility is not limited to my God.
I never said otherwise.
Did you deliberately ignored what I said about interferences have to produce changes to even qualify as interference? And that changes by definition changed something so generated evidence?
You are making the positive claim that god could be interfering with this world without generating evidence. You have yet to defend your statement.
