Let's make it simple. Why don't you quote what you claim to have read there and then quote the actual words where you see that.
We're going around in circles, while I'm explaining why I think you're wrong, and you're not explaining why you think I'm wrong. But here you go:
The Abarbanel has natural explanations for the makkos too
I supported that statement that the Makkos were not evidence of Yad Hashem, saying:
The Ran in Drashos Haran says there was no conclusive evidence of the existence of Hashem until Krias Hayam, which is why it says then ויאמינו בה׳ ובמשה עבדו.
The Ran says:
אבל יש כאן שאלה שלאחר קריעת ים סוף מצינו כתוב ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו, וא"כ נראה שקודם זה לא היתה אמונתם שלימה עליהם:
Implying the Emunah IN HASHEM and in Moshe was incomplete until Kriyas Hayam
And the Ran says further about the Makkos themself, that they could have been accomplished by skulduggery, and hence not evidence of the existence of Hashem (since Moshe could have done them without Hashem):
כן היה ראוי אליו לחשוב שכל מה שעשה משה רבינו עליו השלום לא בא מאת הש"י אבל נעשה בחכמה וברמיה
You then misunderstood when I said there was
no evidence of the existence of Hashem in the 10 makos to be saying Bnei Yisroel/Paraho didn't believe in Hashem:
Not about doubting "the existence of Hashem" ח"ו!
And I attempted to clarify that twice:
He's explaining ויאמינו בה׳ ובמשה עבדו, and that's talking about both of them. He also cites Yisro, and the Pasuk he cites clearly says Yisro was only convinced about the existence of Hashem by Krias Hayam, nothing about Moshe ( עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה׳ מכל אלוקים, כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם).
We're discussing whether or not the Makkos were evidence of the existence of Hashem, not what anybody believed.
And the Ran says very explicitly the 10 Makkos were not evidence of the existence of Hashem. That in no way proves or contradicts the statement that Paraoh & Bnei Yisroel believed in hashem.
To summarize: I believe I had chicken soup for dinner, but this post isn't evidence of that. Hashem exists, but the 10 makkos alone didn't prove it. The two aren't contradictory.
I'm happy to accept that you're right and I'm mistaken, but I beg you to explain to me precisely how so.