What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I think we do share some of the same basic views about reality.

Except we don't, Tegh. That is what you really need to recognize. It is like you are so hopelessly inured to your belief system that you are incapable of recognizing or even conceiving of any alternative view. No, we do not share in common any views about reality—not even what constitutes reality. The antithesis is fundamental. What we share in common is a skeptical attitude. We are not credulous and gullible. But skepticism is an heuristic device, not any sort of "view about reality."

For the sake of argument then, I will except it is this skeptical attitude. It does not appear to me that you have consistently applied this attitude.

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 ... What's the difference between claiming a spaceship is in my barn and claiming heaven exists? ... Why the inconsistency?

What inconsistency? You're right, I don't apply the same critical evaluation to both—because you're wrong, they are not in the same category. A spaceship is an empirical object, an angel is not. Demanding empirical evidence for a non-empirical object is a categorical error. You make that error. I do not.

According to what or whom? Why are angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc non-empirical objects? This seems like a completely arbitrary attribute designed only to avoid testing. I could just as easily claim the spaceship in my barn is a "non-empircal" object.

So your worldview assumes the existence of heaven and angels ...

No, it does not assume that. Stop characterizing my worldview according to yours.

I'm only guessing what your worldview might be and leading on with that because you've hardly been open and specific to what you exactly believe about these things.

... but it doesn't assume the existence of the spaceship in my barn?

Why would it?

Again I was going on a hunch illustrating what seems to me to be special standards to way you evaluate angels etc. And I still detect special standards only specifically this time with the whole "non-empircle" business.

Why is it you can critically evaluate the existence of the spaceship in my barn but not angels? ... 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.

Please do not ignore this question: How did you conclude that I don't critically evaluate the existence of angels? Anticipating that you did not conclude it but rather assumed it, please answer this follow-up question instead: If you assumed it, then why did you think that was a reasonable assumption to make about me?

Again, I was acting on a hunch. You haven't demonstrated that you have critically evaluated this things in the scrutiny as any other extraordinary claim so I was acting on the possibility that haven't in the chance the discussion might go somewhere. You obviously think you have (and maybe you have) but there's still been nothing shown in this thread to support these "non-empircle" objects.

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

Scripture.

That is pretty vague. If somebody asks me why I believe in evolution, I could just reply "textbook" and be done with it? That's hardly a sufficient answer. I need specifics.

I don't see why we need to get into those issues.

Then you need to read what I invest time in writing because the answer was right in that paragraph: "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" that God and angels are consistent with reality?
[/quote]

I still do not see why that's relevant. I'm questioning your commitment to consistently applying skepticism to your own worldview and asking you to demonstrate you have consistently applied your skepticism. This is what I've been trying basically get at all along.