What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[pocaracas]

And Christianity fulfills every one of your requirements? Awesome!

Uh, thanks?

you're welcome.

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.

you're sure?
As in, "you don't know, but they must be similar to currently existing religions"?

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.

Oh, rebellion against god and his authority?
But, back then, they weren't aware of your christian god. How could they rebel against something they were not aware may even be there? Or do you have some intel that supports that they were aware of it?

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?

Well then, please define your god for me, so I don't have to fabricate anything.

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.

So, just to make it clear, you claim christianity "does not have to borrow any intellectual currency from without itself in order to account for some thing or other", right?
Or does this only apply to your version of christianity? and what version would that be?

... 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.

yes, I am an ignorant of the bible.... I'm also an ignorant of the kuran, the Torah, the Vedas, the mesopotamic scrolls, etc, etc, etc... Are you equally fluent in all of the existing holy texts?

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.

Are you implying that god passed his message to all of man-kind....but they failed to interpret and record it properly, except wherever your god is from?

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).

Ah, my fallacy of exaggeration... I distinctly remember wanting to write "all good fairy tales"... bah, it would mean the same.
And yes, I am committing the fallacy of putting your bible on the same pedestal as fairy tales.

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.)

You're the one who claims that your religion is "Consistent with the world in which we live". I merely wish you to answer the question of "How so?"...

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

But you fail to answer my question providing some convenient cop-out.

You assert something and then say it's irrelevant and unnecessary to expose your "logical reasoning" behind that assertion.
Why?


On the other hand, you claim that christianity is "necessarily true". What is the "logical reasoning" that got you to this conclusion? (If you already typed it somewhere else, just point to there)