Fine, call it what you like. God doesn't expect one to blindly accept anything. He expects that His scriptures will be put to the test to insure that they are error-free. So either assume that it is true and go about proving that it is not or conversely, assume that it is false and set about to prove that it is true. If the former case, you will be left holding an empty bag. If you take the latter approach, you will find that there are many things you can't prove but many that you can - and of the things you can prove, these will be error-free.
Ok, I think I'll call it assuming what is to be proved.
God doesn't expect one to blindly accept anything. He expects that His scriptures will be put to the test to insure that they are error-free. So either assume that it is true and go about proving that it is not or conversely, assume that it is false and set about to prove that it is true.
You are well on your way to commiting the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is another choice: one may suppose that neither conclusion is demonstrable, and will remain unknown.
If you take the latter approach, you will find that there are many things you can't prove but many that you can - and of the things you can prove, these will be error-free.
And...how will you know that you aren't making mistakes collecting and interpreting this data? Do you claim humans who follow the bible are also infallible?
At any rate, this not a deductive proof, it is an example of inductive reasoning. You can only increase your confidence in this manner. Let me show you with a similar example:
Assume that Darwinian evolutionary theory is correct, and lets send out grad students to dig up more rocks, using evolutionary theory and the known data to predict what they will find, and we'll see if what they find confirms or refutes Darwinian theory.
I submit to you that this works for science, because science isn't presenting a claim of infallibility--just of being able to tell stories that might be a good bet. It does not work for you, because you are.