What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[pocaracas]

He asserted that the Bible's claims are about "non-empircle" things but he didn't back that up.

He stated what is known and accepted should you seriously consider the subject. Are you claiming that God, angels, heaven etc are empirically provable? ie do you contest the stand point?

If they are non-empirical, how did they make it into the book?
what are our options?
- They came into some person's dreams/thoughts - inspiration.
- They actually materialized for some people (non-empirical, no go here, right?)
- Some person dreamed them.
- Some person imagined them.
- Some person postulated them.
- Some person reasoned that they must exist.
- They wrote themselves, magically, into the book.
- please add more as fitting...

[fr0d0]

If you reasoned that they must exist pokie, would that satisfy you?

[pocaracas]

If you reasoned that they must exist pokie, would that satisfy you?

What is the reasoning sequence then?

[fr0d0]

Receive information, test it and be satisfied that it is correct.

[pocaracas]

Receive information, test it and be satisfied that it is correct.

Ok, let's take this a step at a time.
Which information should I look into to arrive at the conclusion that those non-empirical entities exist?

[fr0d0]

Ok, let's take this a step at a time.
Which information should I look into to arrive at the conclusion that those non-empirical entities exist?

Which information do you think you need to look into?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Which information do you think you need to look into?

Wow. I'm impressed! I hadn't even considered using this tactic before. The skeptic wants proof. You tell him to look for some. He asks where to look. And you shrug and say essentially, "I dunno, where do you think you should look?"

Brilliant!

[pocaracas]

Ok, let's take this a step at a time.
Which information should I look into to arrive at the conclusion that those non-empirical entities exist?

Which information do you think you need to look into?

I have no clue. But you, or ryft, seem to know, that's why I asked.
I simply want to retrace your exact steps from that information you gathered to the conclusion that angels and other non-empirical entities exist.
Can you do that for me?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Can you explain why it should be accepted that angels and the like be classified as non-empirical objects without resorting to logical fallacies? Appealing to a dictionary as proof is a logically fallacy similar to appealing to authority.

Except I am not pointing to any authority as empirical proof of existence. Merely of accepted definition. If you were to quit trying to jump the gun we might get somewhere. ...

This isn't about you pointing to an authority for proof of existence. I keep asking why we should think of angels et al as non-empirical objects and you keep resorting to the fallacy of appeal to definition and consensus. Just because 'x' is commonly defined as 'y' it does not follow that we should accept that 'x' be defined as 'y.'

[fr0d0]

Ah pokie you ask so nicely I'm almost tempted to answer. Hold on and Ryft will be back soon.