What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[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.