But multiverse theory is still a faith that the enormous extrapolations from tested physics are correct. If the multiverse theory is proved correct, it still won't disprove the existence of God.
I never mentioned multiverse theory. Thank you, though at least it gives everyone a chance to see what a straw man argument looks like. Maybe you could get a job filling in for Glenn Beck. Multiverse does not refer to any one theory but rather to a large group of theories about the origin of the universe. However, Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation has become the most commonly accepted definition of a multiverse theory and in that respect it does explain a great many unanswered scientific questions such as the apparent fine-tuning of the universe and key physical constants such as the cosmological constant. This theory and Penrose's cyclic universe theory are solid explanations of observable phemonena. Like all scientific theories they are adapted or dropped completely as new evidence emerges. Religion doesn't adapt to evidence as the following statement shows:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
This sentence is part of a statement of faith on a number of religious websites including Answers in Genesis and Creation Science Evangelism. Science attempts to offer real answers to questions about the origins of life and the universe. All we get from religion is God did it, which is not an answer, merely an evasion.
By the way, a scientific theory will never be proven correct. It's something I'm used to hearing from creationists and it shows a fundamental misconception of the scientific method. There is no status above theory in science.
The claims that Jesus is nothing more than a myth
Maybe you should look at what I actually said. I said that Jesus was just some guy who had a personality cult built up around him. I'm not saying that Jesus was a myth. I will freely accept that there was probably a flesh and blood individual named Jesus. What I am saying is that the stories which have been laid down in the bible which suggest Jesus as some mystical being are mythical. These parallels don't come from modern academic interpretation but rather from the original texts as they have been preserved. The same is true for other parts of the bible.
Behold the story of Moses, Exodus 2:1-3
"And a man of the house of Levi went and took as wife a daughter of Levi. So the woman conceived and bore a son. And when she saw that he was a beautiful child, she hid him three months. But when she could no longer hide him, she took an ark of bulrushes for him, daubed it with asphalt and pitch, put the child in it, and laid it in the reeds by the river's bank.
and pyramid text recovered from Giza
The battle between the two resulted in the death of Osiris, but before he died Osiris had impregnated his wife, Isis, goddess of wisdom and beauty. Isis in turn gave birth to Horus, the falcon-headed god of kingship. When Seth learned that his brother Osiris’s offspring had been born, he sought to kill the baby Horus. Isis prepared a basket of reeds to hide him in the marshland of the Nile Delta
, where she suckled him and protected him, along with the watchful eye of her sister, Nephthys, from the snakes, scorpions and other dangerous creatures until he grew and prospered.
It's not just a textual correlation but also an iconographic one:
Syncretism pervades the entire scope of christian mythology and for the most part this is perfectly innocent. It was simply a means of adherents of the new religion of relating their stories to those they wished to convert. Most reputable academics agree that by about the 3rd or 4th century the catholic understanding of god had expanded to include greek mythological concepts and characters. It does however, count in a large way against the historical truth of the stories in the bible. The flood myth, for example can be found in 26 different mythological traditions as far west as Mexico and as far east as Japan. The date for Easter, as another example is set as the first sunday following the first full moon following the vernal equinox. One would imagine, that were Easter a real event, then it's actual date would have been recorded. Christmas, as a final example is the 25th December which just happens to coincide with the ancient roman tradition of Sol Invictus. Besides, I think it would be rather short-sighted of God to incarnate himself on a day when the average temperature in Bethlehem is about 4 degrees Celsius.
That is indeed a possibility, and that is where the faith/belief bit comes in.
Yes, that is the point. Faith exists in spite of the lack of evidence. If someone argues that they believe in something on faith, then that's an automatic win. No intelligent opponent is going to piss up that rope, but if you start talking about evidence or "irrefutable proof" then you can expect a hard hill to climb.
By the way, you mentioned irrefutable proof and not for the first time. It's always a term that's bandied about in these kinds of arguments and it can be used by either side as an intellectually dishonest way to attack their opponent's position. My question to you is, what for you would constitute irrefutable proof of the non-existence of God?
As far and faith and proving religion to be true goes I must bow to the wisdom of Douglas Adams:
"I refuse to prove I exist, says God, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing. But, says man, the Babelfish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED. Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that, says God and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
"Science doesn't know everything. Religion doesn't know anything." AronRa - WAC 2011