Who said anything about that? Now you are arguing that proof that a God exists does not disprove multiple Gods.
No, I'm saying that by selecting an operational definition for god, and trying to "prove" that, does not in itself prove the existence of god. You can only assume your operational definition is accurate.
But yes, I am amused that you believe you're taking a rational, scientific approach in basing your operational definition on a text written thousands of years ago. If you get this being to part the red sea, have you proven that "God" exists, or that "Poseidon" exists? or Oceanus? Or Moses? Or Baal? Or Chalchiuhtlicue? Or an alien being with powers to control the elements? Or one with psychic powers to make you believe you saw things you did not?
You are going at this backwards. The existence of a God does not prove Christianity, monotheism or any other religious tenet and that was never the point. It would disprove atheism.
No, I was saying that we cannot disprove atheism because we cannot prove the existence of a god.
Atheists decry theology as arbitrary and completely based on faith, but on the other hand espouse their own untestable, faith-based world view. Again, atheism is akin to a theory that deities do not exist. You may be able to "prove" through logical inconsistency that particular deities do not exist (at least as specified in a particular faith), but that will never prove the belief that "deities do not exist." Yes, you may greatly increase confidence in that belief, but never do you prove it to be true.
So, from a scientific standpoint, we compare evidence consistent with theism versus evidence consistent with atheism and derive our conclusion based on the weight of the evidence. But we can neither prove or disprove either scientifically.
Are you kidding? You check to see if there is any sort of device at work that could cause it. There is nothing difficult about that.
There is no reason why we can't conduct the test in an environment that is more easily controlled, though, if that is your concern.
LOL - and you're confident you know of all such devices to look for and how to check whether they were used? Absurd. Five hundred years ago you could have conducted multiple tests in tighty controlled environments to verify whether a strange man claiming to have omniscient knowledge of the terrain, the weather, the location of roaming herds, human settlements in unexplored lands, moving armies, and spot-on accuracy of the geography of the world.
Of course, to be sure, these sixteenth century philosopher-scientists would simply have had to rule out any device at work that could explain all of this, and there probably would have been "nothing difficult" about verifying that the information didn't come from a data feed sent by a satellite in geostationary orbit via the k band of the electromagnetic spectrum. It's all very simple, really.
You are not taking a scientific position. Your view is DEFINITELY anti science. You are pretending that all proof is invalid or equally valid, whether it is vetted through the scientific method or not.
You are only demonstrating that you don't understand science. The scientific method doesn't produce "proof" it produces evidence that is consistent or inconsistent with a theory or hypothesis. It never aims to prove a theory or hypothesis, because the process is inductive and therefore
cannot logically provide proof.
Again, you are going at it backwards. I am not talking about proving any theory, but disproving the theory that God(s) do not exist.
You are trying to make an argument based on falsifiability and have suggested that the atheistic view can be falsified by demonstrating the existence of a god. The problem with your position is that you are unable to demonstrate how we can conclusively prove that a god exists.
You suggest this may be accomplished by asking god to perform a series of tasks that only god could do (i.e. miracles). As I have tried to stress, none of those acts, none of those "miracles" can be proven to be miracles scientifically. You suggest ways we might falsify a miracle ("check for a device that might explain it") but you cannot prove the act itself is a miracle.
To claim otherwise shows your logic to be irrational - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
