@Michael Tricoci: Testable proof of god is oxymoronic.
That depends on how you define god? Many people simply define god as being untestable by usual verifiable means.
I don't see any contradiction in what I said. Some people define it as untestable, others do not.
If someone comes up with a test for god, fine, bring it on; obviously I doubt anything will result of it, but I don't see how god is untestable by all definitions.
"If you are not talking about a creator, about omnipotence, omniscience, miracles, spirits, magic, heaven, hell or the soul, then you are not talking about a god."
You just defined god using a specific set of attributes...
I understand now that when you say identity, you mean a definition without logical contradiction. In that light, I agree there cannot be anything supernatural.
But your "test" of identity is not up to the capabilities of science. You may say that science needs philosophy to function, but so far you have not proven it to me.