What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Cyberman]

I took "necessarily true" to mean the bible has to be true otherwise the whole industry spawned from it would collapse. And that would never do.

[ThomM]

Actually - it has already happened
IT was the Holocaust

In Law - there is a subject called Depraved Indifference - where if YOU know that something very grave will happen - but YOU do not report it or do something to prevent it - you are guilty of the crime as well as those who actually do it.

In The Holocaust - there were Hundreds of Thousands of Babies and very young children - too young to have reached the age of responsibility - Killed.

Even if you ignore the Adults and older children - the failure to attempt to prevent such a killing is DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE if a god actually existed.

So - if a god is ALL Knowing - it knew it would happen - and if that god is ALMIGHTY it could do something to prevent it - and that it did not act is simply a crime = or lack of existence

TODAY - over 1600 young children will be physically or sexually abused by a Family member - if ALL a god does is look down and watch - it is NOTHING but a PERVERT

That we KNOW that a god as defined by the claims of the bible CANNOT exist to begin with is enough for me not to believe - among other things - no being can be almighty - there are things I can do that the god of christianity as defined in the BIBLE cannot do.

However - NO one will ever get me to bow down to a pervert!

[pocaracas]

Even if you ignore the Adults and older children - the failure to attempt to prevent such a killing is DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE if a god actually existed.

So - if a god is ALL Knowing - it knew it would happen - and if that god is ALMIGHTY it could do something to prevent it - and that it did not act is simply a crime = or lack of existence

Dude, this is the same god that "flooded the whole Earth and killed every single person and land animal, except one family of each species that this one family of humans could get their hands on".
The Holocaust is peanuts next to this.

[Rev. Rye]

Even if you ignore the Adults and older children - the failure to attempt to prevent such a killing is DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE if a god actually existed.

So - if a god is ALL Knowing - it knew it would happen - and if that god is ALMIGHTY it could do something to prevent it - and that it did not act is simply a crime = or lack of existence

Dude, this is the same god that "flooded the whole Earth and killed every single person and land animal, except one family of each species that this one family of humans could get their hands on".
The Holocaust is peanuts next to this.

Of course, it's likely that, at that point, the world's population could very well have been less than 12 million people, so maybe more people died in the Holocaust than the great flood.

P.S. The death toll of the Holocaust is only 6 million if you don't count the goyim.

[pocaracas]

Amazing thing, the wiki:

During the 6th millennium BC, agriculture spread from the Balkans to Italy and Eastern Europe, and also from Mesopotamia to Egypt. World population was essentially stable at approximately 5 million, though some speculate up to 7 million.

Almost the same death toll.... but in percentage of the world's population.... something entirely different.

[Rev. Rye]

Amazing thing, the wiki:

During the 6th millennium BC, agriculture spread from the Balkans to Italy and Eastern Europe, and also from Mesopotamia to Egypt. World population was essentially stable at approximately 5 million, though some speculate up to 7 million.

Almost the same death toll.... but in percentage of the world's population.... something entirely different.

Not almost the exact same.

The current estimates:
Victims Killed Source
Jews 5.9 million [256]
Soviet POWs 2–3 million [257]
Ethnic Poles 1.8–2 million [258][259]
Romani 220,000–1,500,000 [260][261]
Disabled 200,000–250,000
Freemasons 80,000
Slovenes 20,000–25,000
Homosexuals 5,000–15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 2,500–5,000

That's 10 million at least! It's only 6 million if you don't count the goyim.

[pocaracas]

Amazing thing, the wiki:

Almost the same death toll.... but in percentage of the world's population.... something entirely different.

Not almost the exact same.

The current estimates:
Victims Killed Source
Jews 5.9 million [256]
Soviet POWs 2–3 million [257]
Ethnic Poles 1.8–2 million [258][259]
Romani 220,000–1,500,000 [260][261]
Disabled 200,000–250,000
Freemasons 80,000
Slovenes 20,000–25,000
Homosexuals 5,000–15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses 2,500–5,000

That's 10 million at least! It's only 6 million if you don't count the goyim.

but in percentage of the world's population.... [it's] something entirely different.

From our "trusty" source, the wiki:


Holocaust: (just jews)~6M / ~2300M ~= 0.26%
Holocaust: (all) (6+3+2+1.5+.25+.15+.05)M / ~2300M = 12.95M/~2300M ~= 0.563%
Flood: ~5M-5/~5M ~= 99.9999%

So, Hitler&friends got less than 1% of the population, while god allegedly got very close to 100%.

Continuing on the original point, if god was performing "DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE" towards Hitler, what was he performing towards himself?

[Ryft]

No, that is not what I mean by self-attesting. A worldview is self-attesting when it does not need to reach outside itself to account for or explain this, that, or some other thing. If a worldview has to borrow intellectual capital from without, then it is not self-attesting.

This explanation is barely intelligible. Give me an example where a worldview borrows intellectual capital "from without." I have no idea what that means.

Honestly? I am using vocabulary and concepts that are familiar to high school students—at least in Canada and the UK. Are they "barely intelligible," really? Then you are probably not prepared to interact with these issues yet. Personally I am hoping your comment was just transparent and gratuitous rhetoric you did not really mean, that you actually do understand such rudimentary vocabulary and concepts.

It seems almost self-evident what the term "from without" would mean, considering its opposite being "from within." So an example of a worldview borrowing intellectual capital from without (i.e., having to reach outside itself to accout for or explain something) would be a worldview that explains what is moral but does not account for what morality is. In light of the latter, what is the former based on? Not anything from within the worldview itself, and thus from without.

You said the Bible is consistent with the world. You read some Bible stories and then look out your window. Does the Bible look very consistent with the world? Do you see angels and demons flying about? Do you see God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit? Do you even see or detect your soul? Have you seen the afterlife? Have you seen hell? Have you seen heaven? When was the last time you saw a man get raised from the dead?

Yes, the Bible is consistent with the world in which we live, where there exists God, angels and demons, the soul and so forth. Have I observed any of those beings or events? Not exactly, [1] but then what does that have to do with reality? If I don't observe it, then it does not exist? Is that how it works, Tegh? Do you really want to go there? [2]

I didn't think so.

Step up your game, Tegh. Beer league debate won't fly worth shit against me.

I don't drink. And be more intelligible and less obsessive compulsive for once.

This, from the guy who said to me, "You have a very bad habit of missing the point to obvious rhetorical devices, figures of speech, and analogies."

--------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:

[1] I see souls every single day, and I might have seen angels (Hebrews 13:2).

[2] I have a sneaking suspicion that you are about to conflate metaphysics and epistemology, in three, two, one ...

---

---

Then tell me, what presuppositions do you accept while determining the truth of a worldview?

If you go back to my original response (Post #84) you should observe that "true" was not stipulated as one of the criteria. When it comes to which worldview is true, there is only one contender, Christianity, for it is true necessarily. As per Tegh's request, I said this can be disproved by "the existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live." Without such a worldview in existence there is no other presuppositional framework for determining truth.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

This explanation is barely intelligible. Give me an example where a worldview borrows intellectual capital "from without." I have no idea what that means.

Honestly? I am using vocabulary and concepts that are familiar to high school students—at least in Canada and the UK. Are they "barely intelligible," really? Then you are probably not prepared to interact with these issues yet. Personally I am hoping your comment was just transparent and gratuitous rhetoric you did not really mean, that you actually do understand such rudimentary vocabulary and concepts.

It seems almost self-evident what the term "from without" would mean, considering its opposite being "from within." So an example of a worldview borrowing intellectual capital from without (i.e., having to reach outside itself to accout for or explain something) would be a worldview that explains what is moral but does not account for what morality is. In light of the latter, what is the former based on? Not anything from within the worldview itself, and thus from without.

Where I come from, "without" refers simply to not having something whereas "within" means sometimes originates from inside and invokes spatial imagery. I've never heard the term "without" used in the context of something getting something from outside itself. It's always meant simply not having something. You're using the word to describe something having something that originated from another source. Is this some difference between normal American english and Canadian? I guess I'm "aboot" to find out.

I just looked it up in my American Oxford dictionary. It says the way you use "without" is an "archaic" usage. Shall we then also start using 'f' for small 's's and saying "ye", and "whither" and "'tis"? That sounds like a gay time.

You said the Bible is consistent with the world. You read some Bible stories and then look out your window. Does the Bible look very consistent with the world? Do you see angels and demons flying about? Do you see God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit? Do you even see or detect your soul? Have you seen the afterlife? Have you seen hell? Have you seen heaven? When was the last time you saw a man get raised from the dead?

Yes, the Bible is consistent with the world in which we live, where there exists God, angels and demons, the soul and so forth. Have I observed any of those beings or events? Not exactly, [1] but then what does that have to do with reality? If I don't observe it, then it does not exist? Is that how it works, Tegh? Do you really want to go there? [2]

I didn't think so.

No that's not how it works. Maybe those things exists. I don't know. But then again, I don't know if there are invisible flying monkeys on Pluto either. I just can't understand why you would believe such things exists.

Is it simply because you want to believe in them?

Explain why you believe the Christian God exists and all his superfriends if you haven't quite ("not exactly") seen them.

I don't drink. And be more intelligible and less obsessive compulsive for once.

This, from the guy who said to me, "You have a very bad habit of missing the point to obvious rhetorical devices, figures of speech, and analogies."

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

[genkaus]

Yes, the Bible is consistent with the world in which we live,

No, it isn't. It contains many factual errors and internal contradictions that make it inconsistent with reality.

If you go back to my original response (Post #84) you should observe that "true" was not stipulated as one of the criteria.

Yes, it was. Something is considered to be true if it is consistent with its premises and/or consistent with reality. One of your requirements was "consistent with itself and the world we live in", i.e. true.

When it comes to which worldview is true, there is only one contender, Christianity, for it is true necessarily. As per Tegh's request, I said this can be disproved by "the existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live." Without such a worldview in existence there is no other presuppositional framework for determining truth.

First of all, thanks for proving me right. By making a statement like "Christianity is the only worldview that is true necessarily", you've shown that you do presuppose the truth of your own worldview and measure that of others by it. Your previous statement regarding existence of god, angels, demons etc. further proves it.

Secondly, no other? As in, your Christian worldview satisfies your criteria for pre-suppositional framework? Don't be ridiculous. Given the number of bare assertions, self-contradictions, factual and logical errors in the bible (upon which, according to you, your worldview is based), it fails all of the given criteria. In fact, to take your own example, it tells you what is moral but does not account for what morality is. Thus, by your own admission, it isn't even self-attesting but borrows intellectual capital from "without".

And finally, there are many other philosophies and worldviews which do qualify the criteria of being "self-attesting, logically coherent and consistent with itself and the world we live in" - naturalism being the first to come to mind. The only reason you don't accept it is because of your pressuposition of truth of your worldview.