That isn't how it works. The person making a claim provides evidence and predictions. The person denying that claim needs not provide these things. Until evidence is produced, and predictions are proved true, there is no reason for the denier to begin believing in a claim.
the claim is that there is no evidence for a creator, we cannot know whether this is true or not until we have predictions of what we should find if there is a creator. It isn't that hard of a concept. I want to explore and see the claim of no evidence for a creator is true. In order to do that, we need predictions that can be tested and falsified, which is exactly what I am asking for. What predictions can we make if a creator is true? Predictions that are testable and falsifiable.
Why so much stumbling, it's a very simple process and a simple question and could end the discussion immediately, all we need is one falsification for creator and the whole thing goes away. And yes, that is how the process works.
Oh, and for the record, I am not asking anyone to change their beliefs, nor am I asking for evidence, what I am asking for is very simply what predictions are "you" basing your claim that there is no evidence of a creator on? See, in order for the claim to be made, there has to be evidence that falsified the predictions, I asked for the predictions, not the evidence, not the conclusions, not a change in belief, simply what predictions are "you" basing this claim on. That is on the shoulder of the one making the claim, no one else.
You can't flip things and make the denial of a claim a claim itself that needs disproven. That's where flying spaghetti monsters come from.
But, that is to twist what I am asking for into something I didn't ask for or say. Let's put this in simpler terms and see if that helps.....
Let's say that one claims that there is no evidence that the water in the sink is hot. (see, I even worded the analogy to more closely show the claim that was made) I say, I don't think I agree, so let's look at it, what would evidence of the temperature of the water in the sink look like, what predictions can we make as to the temperature of the water in the sink.
Now a reasonable person would say something like, we can test for the rise of mercury in a thermometer, we can touch it and compare it to the temperature of our skin, we can see if there is steam coming off it, we can place an ide cube in the water and see if it melts, etc. etc. etc. But when ask for the same here, we are told that they can't or won't give anything that would support the claim, iow's it would be like the person saying....sorry, we can't test for the temperature of the water because my claim doesn't support the idea that there is such a thing as a prediction of what would happen if we do any of those things. Nonsense...if you claim there is no evidence, then predications must exist because that is how the scientific method works. I am asking for the predications that the claim says are falsified.
