(August 25, 2013 at 12:05 pm)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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.
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?
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.
What I said just 2 posts ago: 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.
Where did i ignore your question? And you're the one being dishonest here.
