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

[Theo Zacharias]

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.

I don't ignore the absence of evidence. I have said many time that, as far as I know, there is no known evidence that God exists or that God affecting the world.
What I'm trying to defend is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Reading your statement above, you agree that God can affect the world *but we may not be able to detect it with our current technology*. Do you agree with this or not?
If you agree, then your conclusion is unfounded because there may be already evidence, but we simply cannot detect it with our current technology.
Note that I said, "there *may* be", not "there *must* be".

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Read my previous post.

[Theo Zacharias]

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.

---

Btw, I have to go. Not sure if I can be online again next week.
But if I can, I will response to any posts directed to me at that time. Sorry again for any inconvenience because of this.

[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.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Nothing proves theists wrong.

All that happens is a gradual realization that they've been dooped.

Nobody proved you were wrong to believe in Santa, you just found better reasons to stop believing.

Nobody proved that King Neptune doesn't exist, we just got a better understanding of the sea and had less reasons to keep believing that massive hurricanes were the will of a sea king.

Nobody proved that Christ-God exists either, there's better reasons to not believe, but just as there are still believers in ALL the other things above (Yes, Neptune too), there are still theists. All of these things are equally irrational and none can be disproved. All that can really be hoped for is an awakening.

[Sword of Christ]

Nothing proves theists wrong.

All that happens is a gradual realization that they've been dooped.

Nobody proved you were wrong to believe in Santa, you just found better reasons to stop believing.

Nobody proved that King Neptune doesn't exist, we just got a better understanding of the sea and had less reasons to keep believing that massive hurricanes were the will of a sea king.

Nobody proved that Christ-God exists either, there's better reasons to not believe, but just as there are still believers in ALL the other things above (Yes, Neptune too), there are still theists. All of these things are equally irrational and none can be disproved. All that can really be hoped for is an awakening.

It's worth pointing out that Christians don't believe in created gods either, only the eternal source of all things.

[Bad Writer]

That statement has been regurgitated and shot down so many times that it isn't worth a dime. Worth pointing out? Not so much.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Eternal source of all things may be an infinite series of random quantum fluctuations...therefore, you worship random quantum fluctuations. Your bible says that your God used to ask for burnt offerings as a way for being cleansed for giving birth. You're a Christian that worships that God. Therefore, you believe that quantum fluctuations may or may not desire burnt pigeons in exchange for cleansing women's blood? None of this sounds absurd to you?

[CleanShavenJesus]

Eternal source of all things may be an infinite series of random quantum fluctuations...therefore, you worship random quantum fluctuations. Your bible says that your God used to ask for burnt offerings as a way for being cleansed for giving birth. Your a Christian that worships that God. Therefore, you believe that quantum fluctuations may or may not desire burnt pigeons in exchange for cleansing women's blood? None of this sounds absurd to you?

Watch out Sailor, you have 666 posts.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Lol! And here we Go!