What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Firstly, the supposed absence of such a worldview does not entail the truthfulness of Christianity.

Correct. The truthfulness of Christianity entails the absence of such a worldview.

Look, the question you had asked was, "What one thing, if shown to be true, would disprove Christianity entirely for you?" (paraphrased). That is the question I was answering. Since biblical Christianity presents itself as necessarily true, entailing the unintelligibility, incoherence, falsehood, or inconsistency of any non-Christian worldview, in whole or part, it would be disproved entirely 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. That would render Christianity probably true, thus possibly false; and a necessarily true worldview that is possibly false is a self-contradiction. How could you fail to track my direction here? I have been gone too long: You have become sloppy since we last engaged one another.

The theists since you left have been pathetic. Sorry to disappoint.

If by "self-attesting" you mean has evidence to back up its core claims ...

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.

Even if the resurrection occurred, it is a complete non-sequitur to conclude that Jesus was divine and that Christianity is true.

Irrelevant. No such argument exists between us.

Very well.

It has been shown numerous times that there are contradictions in the Bible. The only responses by apologists have been ad hoc rationalizations.

That would be an interesting discussion to have, this idea of yours that apologists have provided "only ... ad hoc rationalizations" (in response to alleged contradictions in the Bible). But since that would derail the subject of this thread I will not pursue it here.

Fine.

Something can be false but still be internally consistent.

True. And not a little ironic that you would say this so very soon after Stimbo chastised Drich for dismantling a simple, cohesive sentence in order to score some rhetorical point. Look once again, but more closely, at what I had actually said: "consistent both with itself and the world in which we live" (emphasis added). "Fantasy stories can be internally consistent but they're not true in reality," you said. Indeed, and thus they are consistent with themselves but not the world in which we live. You are going to have to do a lot better than this, Tegh—an order of magnitude better than this.

I never missed your conjunction but I can I see how my original response could be misconstrued to be read that way.

As for external consistency, I have never seen ... [snip rest]

Irrelevant. It does not matter to my answer what you have and have not seen.

You have a very bad habit of missing the point to obvious rhetorical devices, figures of speech, and analogies.

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?

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.