What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[fr0d0]

This is painful. We should have fleshed this out in chat, rather than spam the thread.

#1 you cited an example off the cuff to compare with a well defined subject: angels. "So... what is the comparison with shit example with no substance that I just pulled out of the air, and your well defined example. Please elaborate... " ...Q Ryft, when we let him.

#2 The OED is an example of an authority. You made the accusation of a fallacy of reference to authority. The OED is an authority too.. hence - fallacy fails. We all have accepted authorities. You and I can accept most definitions in the OED I suspect. Christianity is an authority I would accept, and you wouldn't. The problem here is the transference of understanding from those of us within that group and those outside.. ie you.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

This is painful. We should have fleshed this out in chat, rather than spam the thread.

#1 you cited an example off the cuff to compare with a well defined subject: angels. "So... what is the comparison with shit example with no substance that I just pulled out of the air, and your well defined example. Please elaborate... " ...Q Ryft, when we let him.

What is "substance"? And what does the supposed lack of substance have to do with your inability to answer the question?

Remember the question? Why call angels non- empirical and my spaceship empirical?

And here's another one for you to chew on: How do you know when to define an object as either being empirical or non-empirical?

#2 The OED is an example of an authority. You made the accusation of a fallacy of reference to authority. The OED is an authority too.. hence - fallacy fails.

The OED is only an authority on the traditional meaning of words. It only has the standard definition but it doesn't give you a reason why to accept the definition. Dictionaries don't reason.

We all have accepted authorities.

Except I don't put the assertion of an authority into an argument and pretend I have a valid deductive argument.

You and I can accept most definitions in the OED I suspect.

That's irrevelant. If next year's edition of the OED was changed to say that "God is understood by Christians to look like a frog" would you suddenly believe God was an all powerful frog? No. You'd contest the definition.

Christianity is an authority I would accept, and you wouldn't. The problem here is the transference of understanding from those of us within that group and those outside.. ie you.

No the problem here is your refusal to explain the seeming inconsistency in the way you define different entities.

---

This is the fallacy btw: http://logicallyfallacious.com/index.php...definition

[fr0d0]

I'm stepping off this merry go round. Let's chat directly some time

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I'm stepping off this merry go round. Let's chat directly some time

No thanks. I'd rather have all of your future fallacies on record for everyone to see.

[fr0d0]

I'm stepping off this merry go round. Let's chat directly some time

No thanks. I'd rather have all of your future fallacies on record for everyone to see.

You absolute idiot lol

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

No thanks. I'd rather have all of your future fallacies on record for everyone to see.

You absolute idiot lol

I know you are, but what am I?

[Darkstar]

I know this is kind of just thrown out here, and maybe something similar has already been said, but I think I have an idea of what might disprove Christianity to an otherwise unwavering Christian.

That would be the proving of another, mutually exclusive, religion. They would be much more likely to accept this than atheism. Why? Well, for as much as different types of theists hate each other (in theory*), they have stronger feelings against atheism. So, they would be much more willing to convert to another religion then to deconvert to atheism.

*If this actually needs explanation, it is relatively common knowledge that the bible preaches hate of people of other religions, though I don't know for a fact about other religions, I imagine the qur'an isn't much better.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

So far in this thread:

It was claimed that Christianity is consistent with reality despite its many wild claims. It asserts the existence of angels, demons, heaven, hell, the soul, sin etc.

Maybe they do exist but why suppose so?

Why believe the Bible is truthful about these things?

If you take the existence of these things on faith, how can you honestly claim the existence of these things is consistent with reality if you don't know they exist? Maybe they don't exist and the Bible is actually inconsistent with reality.

If however you don't take the existence of these things on faith, and instead you actually have some reason to believe these things exist, what is that reason? If someone could provide a reason, I could critique it.

Note that I'm not necessarily asking for empirical proof. If these things exist as non-empirical objects then obviously looking for empirical evidence would be futile. This however raises some new questions. Why suppose it's possible for something to exist as a non-empirical being or thing? And how do you know when something should be defined as either non-empirical or empirical?

---

If any Christians here could answer the above that would be cool. fr0d0 chickened out and Ryft is missing in action.

[fr0d0]

That would be the proving of another, mutually exclusive, religion.

I think any more perfect explanation of reality would suffice, and that would have to include atheistic as well as theistic.

[salty]

To the Christians on the forum: What one (and only one) thing would if shown to be true, disprove Christianity entirely for you?

That is all.

Faith isn't bound to what can be disproved, personal experiences are usually what make Christians so loyal, and who can prove an experience was a hoax?