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

[Theo Zacharias]

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.

I'm making claim that God could be interfering with this world without generating evidence that we can detect with our currently technology. Are you deliberately remove my last phrase?

As before, you avoid my question. I will ask it again in here:
"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?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

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.

[Theo Zacharias]

@Theo:
what you said:

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?

And then later you said undetectable by current technology. But I've bolded here what you said that is absolutely wrong. In my previous replied I have said that maybe the evidence generated is undetectable by current technology, I don't know why you ignored that and posed the question again. But don't confuse that with no evidence at all, which was the position you were trying to argue for right here.

No, you're misinterpreting me. What's the use of evidence we cannot detect? I'm not sure why you interpret what I'm saying this way.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

The distinction between whether or not there is evidence is crucial to your position. Now you're doing the cop out thing which is: there is evidence, but we can't detect it yet. That scenario is indistinguishable from no evidence. But as long as you don't admit to no evidence, you don't have to admit to no god.

But if you're saying even no evidence=possibility of god's interference, you're by definition wrong.

[Theo Zacharias]

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.

My question is clear:
"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 agree that they can affect our world without leaving any evidence that can be detected by our current technology"

If you agree, then you should also agree that God can affect our world without leaving any evidence that can be detected by our current technology.
In conclusion, the fact that we don't detect any affect from God with our technology so far, is *not* an evidence that God does not exist or that God does not affect our world at all.
This is the main topic we're discussing. Don't avoid the main topic by using misinterpretation excuse.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

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.

My question is clear:
"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 agree that they can affect our world without leaving any evidence that can be detected by our current technology"

If you agree, then you should also agree that God can affect our world without leaving any evidence that can be detected by our current technology.
In conclusion, the fact that we don't detect any affect from God with our technology so far, is *not* an evidence that God does not exist or that God does not affect our world at all.
This is the main topic we're discussing. Don't avoid the main topic by using misinterpretation excuse.

Ok, let's get a few things straight.

Theoretically, can god impact the world leaving evidences that we cannot currently detect? Yes.

However, the result of his interference to remain undetected? Really? If this is the position you want to hold then god doesn't significantly impact much, right? If it cannot be detected. Yea it's possible (not probable, but almost everything is possible).

Btw, the lack of evidence right now is evidence that god isn't interfering in ways that we can detect. That covers quite a lot of ground, even if it doesn't cover all.

[Theo Zacharias]

@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.

Btw, above is your original posting that started our discussion.
When you said "it must generate some form of evidence", which one did you mean:
(1) it must generate some form of evidence *that we can detect with our current technology*
(2) it must generate some form of evidence, *but we may not be able to detect it with our current technology*.

Don't forget that after you claim that, you said that the absence of evidence is evidence of God not affecting this world. This is the conclusion of your claim.
The conclusion only makes sense if you meant to say (1). If you meant to say (2), then the absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence because there may be evidence but we are unable to detect it with our currently technology.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

@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.

Btw, above is your original posting that started our discussion.
When you said "it must generate some form of evidence", which one did you mean:
(1) it must generate some form of evidence *that we can detect with our current technology*
(2) it must generate some form of evidence, *but we may not be able to detect it with our current technology*.

Don't forget that after you claim that, you said that the absence of evidence is evidence of God not affecting this world. This is the conclusion of your claim.
The conclusion only makes sense if you meant to say (1). If you meant to say (2), then the absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence because there may be evidence but we are unable to detect it with our currently technology.

I meant both, evidence is evidence. My claim is not temporally bound btw, in the future if they detect something then my claim still stands, it'll lead to a different conclusion. In the past, technology wasn't advanced enough and people had a different conclusion (that god interferes), they still concluded based on the evidence at hand.

Based on the evidence at hand right now, I conclude that god is not interfering with the world.

The evidence leads to a conclusion, you cannot ignore the absence of evidence and claim the opposite and say you're doing the more honest thing. You admit to the possibility of both, but conclude what the evidence supports. The possibility thing is something religious people like to hold on to, it's not common practice to consider far fetched possibilities, only probabilities, which is why I didn't think to even bring that up.

[Theo Zacharias]

Ok, let's get a few things straight.

Ok agree, let's discard previous misinterpretation then.

Theoretically, can god impact the world leaving evidences that we cannot currently detect? Yes.

Yes, agree.

However, the result of his interference to remain undetected? Really? If this is the position you want to hold then god doesn't significantly impact much, right? If it cannot be detected. Yea it's possible (not probable, but almost everything is possible).

First, I still open to the possibility that in the future, with more advance technology and knowledge, we can actually detect the evidence (if it exists).
Second, if we cannot detect the evidence with our current technology, then it doesn't mean that the affect is not significant. Compare to technology million years ahead of us, our current technology is very primitive.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

However, the result of his interference to remain undetected? Really? If this is the position you want to hold then god doesn't significantly impact much, right? If it cannot be detected. Yea it's possible (not probable, but almost everything is possible).

First, I still open to the possibility that in the future, with more advance technology and knowledge, we can actually detect the evidence (if it exists).
Second, if we cannot detect the evidence with our current technology, then it doesn't mean that the affect is not significant. Compare to technology million years ahead of us, our current technology is very primitive.

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.

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.