[ That's not necessarily true. Weather or not the existence of a specific god(s) can be disproven is a matter of definition. It's why I'll only accept the burden of proof regarding the non-existence of a god after the god(s) is defined, and that definition is agreed upon.
Agreed to by who?
Quote
The problem with Christians is, they are really good at "Moving the Goal Posts". They've been doing it for a couple thousand years in their attempts to create an unfalsifiable definition their god.
Modern theologians aren't moving the goals posts.
God of the Bible is by definition falsifiable because He is supernatural and sentient. The empirical method only works in the realm of the natural laws of physics.
