They're synonymous. I can't believe I have to argue this.

Except they aren't?

I need to ask you where you got your scientific credentials to call yourself a "scientist" because this is basic stuff. Evidence is not proof. This is a well known concept though it seems to elude you. Please, do a little more reading.

The fact that you link to dictionary definitions is telling. Science has its own terminology. The colloquial meaning of things like law, theory, proof, evidence, are different than the scientific definition of those terms. Isn't that obvious?

Please go to /r/askscience and ask if they are the same thing. I want to see a bunch a verified actual scientists call you an idiot.

It's important in drug trials to show that the drug is effective beyond simply the psychosomatic effect of "positive thinking." The use of placebo is a negative control - you know nothing should happen, but it's not always the case. Do you know how many drugs have a slightly better performance over placebo?

And? Homeopathy and sugar pills might have an effect but they are not medicine and they are not treatments. That's the point. And if god's effect is nothing more than what is provided by the placebo effect, then the difference between god existing and interceding and not existing and not interceding is nil. If there's no difference, that's evidence that he doesn't exist, or at least that prayer doesn't work. No one says that homeopathy "works" just because it can trigger the placebo effect. Duh.

Did you get it this time?

That's great. Again, the simple point that you continue to miss is that there is no statistical difference between prayer and no prayer. That is evidence that prayer doesn't work. Which is evidence for the absence of god. You can pray to a jug of milk and it will have the same efficacy as praying to god. Obviously the jug of milk has no healing powers. Either god doesn't exist, has no healing powers, or doesn't ever care to use them. Either way, it's evidence for that.

See 2 Peter 3:8. That's what most Christians use to marry evolution with creationism into the concept of "theistic evolution." Again, you've clearly never spent time or studied Christian thought or apologetics.

That's great. I don't see how it's relevant. When you ask American Christians what they think they answer one way more than the other. Since Christianity is completely subjective and not bound to any reality, the majority opinion is the one that matters. I don't care what X or Y apologist says. I care what most of the self-professed adherents say.

By the way, I'm a pretty loud atheist. You do realize you're not arguing with a believer, right?

Welp, you're just proving that not all atheists are smart. No big deal.

Haha, have you ever studied religion? "God works in mysterious ways." "How can we know what God thinks or does?" Then the whole, "God doesn't show himself because it interferes with free-will and love." Seriously dude, your ignorance is glaring.

I was born and raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools, mass, camps. I have more than enough education and experience in the field. Nonetheless, your protestations are not relevant. I must once again reiterate to you (since you time and again fail to understand it) that so far, the world in which god exists is indistinguishable from the one that he doesn't. Let's compare it to Stenger's elephant in Yellowstone analogy.

Would you agree, that the absence of any evidence of an elephant existing in Yellowstone park is evidence of absent elephants in Yellowstone park? That the absence of any droppings, tracks, hairs, and whatever else is evidence that there is no elephant in Yellowstone park? If you can't agree to that, then I'm never going to be able to lead your dull mind through this process.

If you can agree to that, then consider that yes, people can make all sorts of excuses for the elephant. He poops in a very small hole that we just haven't found yet. He's a light elephant and leaves no tracks. He's mute and never trumpets. Can you make excuses? Yes. Can I disprove such an elephant? No, not really. You can always come up with more excuses. "He's invisible!" if all else fails. The absence of evidence is still evidence of absence in that case though. The simple test is, is there any difference whatsoever in the two scenarios. Is there a difference between the elephant that doesn't exist and the elephant people claim exists but leaves no trace at all and never interacts with anything? And there isn't.

Similarly, you can make excuses for god. He works in mysterious ways. He chooses to hide himself. Yes, you can make excuses. It prevents me from proving that your god doesn't exist. It doesn't however mean that the evidence doesn't point to his absence.

You must be stupid to still not understand that evidence and proof ARE SYNONYMOUS. Look in any dictionary, any thesaurus.

I'm going to need to ask for a picture of your degree from an accredited school with your degree in a scientific field. Because I cannot believe you don't get this. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. Renowned scientists from around the world agree on that. You apparently do not. Here's a simple way to think about it, though I don't know if it's simple enough for you (I rather doubt it at this point).

Scientific theories are called theories for a reason. They are open to being disproven. Every single one of them. Gravity, evolution, yes, they are open to it. You cannot prove something and then have it open to being disproven. That's not how it works. So those theories have tons of evidence yes, but they aren't proven.