What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Ryft]

It seems inconsistent with reality.

Why? Because God and angels do not exist?

How do you know these things exist?

That gets into epistemology, which truly is a different subject altogether.

How can you say that the Bible is externally consistent with reality if it contains things such as angels, etc., that you don't know exist?

I don't? You can legitimately make claims about what I do and do not know? Is that a two-way street?

Until such things can be shown to exist or that it is reasonble to assume they exist you cannot say the Bible is consistent with reality.

Yes? According to what or whom? What worldview do I have to presuppose the truth of in order to evaluate my own? And can any criterion for reasonableness be trusted from a worldview which presents such a blatant fallacy as if it were logically legitimate?

---

---

It's like saying that ... [snip rest]

Sure—if you make a strawman caricature of it first. It is even entertaining and makes one smirk.

Unfortunately it is not rational, and thus uninteresting to me.

And Christianity fulfills every one of your requirements? Awesome!

Uh, thanks?

How do you explain the religions that existed before Christianity?

I am sure there are probably a variety of explanations possible, depending on the religion in question, but it is no more challenging than explaining religions that exist contemporaneously with Christianity.

None of them were "self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live," according to you ... so how come people believed in them?

Good question—and, again, it is not unlike today with people believing such things. Why do they? Good question. And there are any number of answers but at the end of the day they all reduce to rebellion against God and his authority.

I mean, if there is some sort of god, that god must have ...

I thought you were an atheist. Why are you doing theology? That is not exactly self-consistent.

To me, it all sounds a lot like man-made myth and very little like all-powerful divine intervention.

First, obviously it is man-made myth because you were making it up on the fly there. Second, what does it matter to reality how something sounds to you?

In light of these "slight" objections of your religion ...

Oh, is that what those were? An atheist, doing theology, fabricates on the fly what "some sort of god" must do or had to do, and that was supposed to constitute some kind of objection to my religion?

Self-attesting? What does that mean, to you?

It means it does not have to borrow any intellectual currency from without itself in order to account for some thing or other.

To me it sounds like ...

What does it matter to reality how something sounds to you?

... and any event that defies a naturalistic interpretation by you is automatically attributed to this divine entity.

That just demonstrates your phenomenal level of ignorance about biblical Christianity.

Logically coherent? All-powerful deity that can't pass a damn message straight to all of man-kind?

Can't? See the argumentum e silentio fallacy.

Consistent with itself? That it is... as are all fairy tales.

I appreciate your concession that my worldview is self-consistent. As for whether or not all fairy tales are, I will have to defer to your expertise; I am not familiar with all the world's fairy tales. Moreover, I have no idea what relevance fairy tales have to this discussion—or perhaps you were compounding your fallacies (and that is self-consistent for most atheists here).

Consistent with the world in which we live? Atheists have been asking for proof of that consistency for ages. I have failed to see any.

So you have failed to see any. What relevance does that have? You do grasp and understand logical relevance, right? (Perhaps not, given the ease and consistency with which you commit one fallacy after another.)

Please provide it.

Convincing you of some belief of mine is neither relevant nor necessary.

---

---

Your mind reading abilities need a lot of work.

So you admit you where wrong then?
Or is that all you could come with,without admitting you where wrong?

Your reading comprehension is not much better.