What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[fr0d0]

That's simply an appeal to consensus fallacy. Simply because it is commonly accepted that these things are non-empirical objects does not mean they are so.

The OED is an example. This is annoying. You're saying just because a concept is accepted, it should also be known before you understand it. You're testing my patience, and what you need to be doing here is addressing the question rather than wasting time like this.

---

[quote='fr0d0' pid='382878' dateline='1357604704']

Are you claiming that God, angels, heaven etc are empirically provable? ie do you contest the stand point?

I never made the claim that they are empirically provable. I just want to know why you guys think they're "non-empirical" whilst apparently dismissing other extraordinary claims for empirical reasons. So far I've been only been given appeal to definition and consensus fallacies in response.

And it is being explained to you. More arm waving. I expected more from you.

---

I'm sure that Ryft could furnish you with a humiliating avalanche of supporting evidence.

That would be awesome.

You would like to be humiliated?

---

I never said the non empirical cannot be true.

Good. Now continue your conversation with Ryft. Adieu.