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

[pineapplebunnybounce]

In ancient China, they tested out herbs one by one to see which one could cure diseases. They had no medical technology that can even compare to what we had 100 years ago. But they could detect which one helped and which ones did not. Of course now all the herbs are being researched to isolate what is actually helping and detect how it does so.

In my example, it was million years not 100 years.
Also God, by definition, is omnipotent, it means that His "technology" is far more advance than just million years ahead of us.

Lack of technology still detects big changes. It's the small ones they have trouble with. If god caused a small change it should lead to a bigger change, or are you saying that it'll stop at the small change? If you're saying that the bigger change is indistinguishable from other things that are not affected by god, then well, you're free to stick to that but that really is just semantics that has no practical impact.

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.