A skeptic says: ``Bible is a fairytale for children.''
A skeptic says that nothing should be believed without sufficient evidentiary support, and then, only to the degrees that the quantity and quality of available evidence support.
Regarding the Bible, he makes no claims about what it is, just that he doesn't have a reason to believe that it is a message from a deity. He doesn't say it isn't, just that there's insufficient evidence of that to believe it.
There can not be a book without writers: God is proven now.
All you've proven with a book is that it was written, not that God wrote it.
Proof is that which convinces, which changes minds. If someone says to you that he can do 60 pushups in a minute, you might not believe him. If he does it, he has proved to you that he could. And he changed your mind. It's that simple.
Who do you think you proved it to? Probably nobody. You and other theists already believe that, and I doubt any skeptic had his mind changed. Claiming you proved something when you changed no minds is like a comedian claiming he was hilarious when nobody laughed.
Incidentally, proving something to another doesn't mean that what was proved was true, just that somebody was convinced it was.
You call that a proof?
That's not a proof.
This is a proof...
This is a specious argument. There is an error in the algebra in the fourth step, where you divide by A-B, which is zero if A=B.
But yes, if this convinced somebody that 2=1, however invalid the argument, then it constitutes proof for that person. My point, and not to you, is that proof still has an element of subjectivity to it, and it is a cooperative effort. Proving should have an indirect object after the verb. Proved to whom?
