To prove God is to prove a negative; to prove god is to define god so that there is no god.
Since coming out of fundamentalism, I would rather combine these too. I do not have faith in God as there is no need for me too. I have faith in the Christian Tradition, however, and a hope. But, it requires proof from time to time.
I would rather go on about this, but I am ill at the moment.
What are your thoughts?
By the way, Jim West has differing thoughts.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
I think Jim is right in calling the picture a false dichotomy. But I also think you are right in stating that proving God would render God falsifiable. Both positions are compatible.