What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The Christian God and all the supernatural beings of the Christian religion are purported to exist by the ancient writers in the Bible. The Bible claims these things exist but that is only a claim. The existence of the Christian God and all his pals (and also the existence of the afterlife, sin, salvation, and heaven and hell) has yet to be supported by argumentation and/or evidence.

It seems inconsistent with what I know of reality. What I know of reality only comprises of animals, planets, galaxies, space, time, etc. In other words, nature. These are things I know exist. I can experience and verify it. Some things I can't experience but I can at least reasonably assume they exist based on theory.

When somebody says the angels of the Christian religion exist, that claim on the face of it seems very inconsistent with reality. I have never experienced such beings nor am I offered proof or at least some reasons why I should believe such beings exist.

So in essence, what I am saying is that the claims of the Bible seem very inconsistent with what I know about reality from everyday experience.

(Don't you dare misconstrue the above paragraphs' use of the pronoun "I" to mean that I'm talking about my own ignorance specifically. The above is applies to everyone.)

So let me paraphrase this: "Your worldview happens to make a lot of claims that are just inconsistent with and fail to meet the criteria of my worldview. And when I say 'my' worldview I mean everyone's because, according to me, everyone shares the same views I do and draws the same conclusions using the same criteria."

I think we do share some of the same basic views about reality, it's just that religious people like yourself appear to be acting inconsistent with those views that you hold. Let's say I have a barn, and I bring you close to the barn and point to it and say "on the inside of it there's an interstellar spaceship." Unless you're completely gullible, you wouldn't believe me unless you had some sort of empirical proof. You know interstellar crafts have only existed in theory and college student like myself certainly couldn't afford one even if they did exist. You know from experience then that the chances I'm telling the truth about there being a spaceship in my barn are incredibly small. I would have to open the barn and show it to and also fly it around a bit to prove to you that I really had one. Or let's say for some reason I can't open the barn door and show it to you, I could at least bring you financial records, the blueprints, the testimony of the scientists and engineers, the pictures and videos of it, and you could analyze those things for yourself and see if it's reasonable to conclude that I have a spaceship in my barn.

The above shows how any properly educated adult in modern western civilization would respond (unless they're mentally handicapped). I'm assuming it's similar to the process you yourself would follow too.

But when it comes to existence of angels and demons, and heaven and hell, you appear to not apply the same critical evaluation even though it's in the same category as claiming there's a spaceship in my barn (claiming something incredible and extraordinary exists). What's the difference between claiming a spaceship is in my barn and claiming heaven exists? Assuming you haven't done the sort of evaluation for yourself of these things that I'm requesting (maybe you have but it doesn't look like it), why the inconsistency?

Look, do you know what a worldview is, Tegh? You are making claims about reality and knowledge—what is real and what isn't and whether we know it and how—as if they're made apart from a worldview, which is preposterous because that is at bottom what a worldview is, practically by definition: one's view of the world in which we live. However basic or sophisticated it might be, it is a worldview that informs your claims about reality and knowledge. And the same thing applies to me (and everyone else, of course, but this is our conversation). So what we have is my worldview versus your worldview, with you objecting that my worldview and its claims don't comport with yours and its criteria. And what I find truly bewildering is why this isn't already plainly obvious.

So your worldview assumes the existence of heaven and angels but it doesn't assume the existence of the spaceship in my barn? Why is it you can critically evaluate the existence of the spaceship in my barn but not angels?

If it were as obvious as it should be, then perhaps you would more easily recognize the question-begging nature of your responses to me. That fallacy is why I don't presuppose the truth of my worldview when critically evaluating another, why I call such a move foolish, and why I am at a loss to understand why you so blissfully do it.

I'm not evaluating my worldview against your own. I'm merely asking you to be consistent in the way you evaluate your worldview. I expect you to be a full blown skeptic when it comes to spaceships in barns but with angels and heaven and hell, you seem to give those things a special pass.

Are not logic and reason esteemed and valued by you? Or only when convenient? (These sort of issues serve as an example to highlight the lack of self-consistency in worldviews—at least with those who profess to esteem logic and reason. If you do not esteem such things, then you are being consistent—at least there but inconsistent in another way; namely, if you do not esteem logic and reason, then the inconsistency arises from you objecting to contradictions and inconsistencies.)

I esteem logic and reason but I've only been studying it for at most a total of a year.

I did not twist your words, Tegh. And I am not avoiding any questions, although I am ignoring some. Did I misunderstand you? Perhaps. But do not impose that kind of malicious intent on me ("twisting my words") when you have no reason to, and even good reason not to (i.e., my track record). You asked very clearly and simply, "How do you know these things exist?" What I know and how I know it, whatever "it" happens to be in any particular case, is an epistemological issue. And given that you are asking for "some proof" of such "supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion," I detected the scent of a justified-true-belief epistemological model. I could tell you how I know God exists but that is NOT going to constitute proof of such a supernatural being for you. Why? Antithetical worldviews, Tegh: the claims of my worldview will not meet the criteria of your worldview, even at the most basic level of metaphysics ("true").

Then tell me, what constitutes proof to you of the existence of the supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion?

The existence of beings like God and angels is consistent with reality. That is the claim. And it immediately raises metaphysical issues: What is reality? What does it include? Or exclude? When is something real? Or existent? Or true? Can something be real but not true? Or exist but not be real? Such issues are the purview of metaphysics and occupy the basic levels of a worldview. If you do not have a definition of reality and a set of criteria to be met, then how on earth could you evaluate the claim? But if you do, then does that definition and set of criteria come from my worldview or somewhere else? If somewhere else, then why are you begging the very question (namely, the nature of reality and what is consistent with it)?

I don't see why we need to get into those issues. All I'm asking is a reason for the apparent inconsistency in the way you evaluate extraordinary claims.

An aside for you to think about; no answer or response necessary:

You seem to approach reality in an experiential kind of way. If your senses can perceive it, then it is real. (But this leaves unanswered some very crucial questions.) And I concede for the sake of argument that you have not experienced a supernatural being, such as God or an angel. But if you are defining what is real by your sensory apparatus, and if your senses can be deceived, and if you hold to something like a justified-true-belief epistemology, then how can any belief of yours be considered true, much less justified? That is, how can you claim to know anything? And if you can't, and insist that no one else can either, then you are being inconsistent every time you ask someone how they know X or prove Y. Moreover, is not everybody's beliefs fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes (the biochemical activity of one's brain following physical laws of nature)? If so, then nobody's beliefs are rationally inferred, including yours. And if they are not rationally inferred, then what meaningful difference is there between your claims and someone else's?

Noted.