Rick leyland asks, if we cannot conclusively detect a supernatural agent, can we then conclude that the agent is non existent? Or if it is undetectable, how do we know it exists? And a related query, if the outcome of an event is the same whether a supernatural agent exists or does not exist, then it is valid to conclude. That's what i was talking about before, but here for a kind of flipping the veilance of the question to what should we conclude when we can't conclude anything? Can you then definitively say there is no supernatural agent? Well, technically no. But why would you start with that assumption in the first place?