RE: What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?
January 8, 2013 at 12:21 pm
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2013 at 12:22 pm by Tea Earl Grey Hot.)
(January 8, 2013 at 6:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(January 8, 2013 at 5:01 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Can you explain why it should be accepted that angels and the like be classified as non-empirical objects without resorting to logical fallacies? Appealing to a dictionary as proof is a logically fallacy similar to appealing to authority.
Except I am not pointing to any authority as empirical proof of existence. Merely of accepted definition. If you were to quit trying to jump the gun we might get somewhere. ...
This isn't about you pointing to an authority for proof of existence. I keep asking why we should think of angels et al as non-empirical objects and you keep resorting to the fallacy of appeal to definition and consensus. Just because 'x' is commonly defined as 'y' it does not follow that we should accept that 'x' be defined as 'y.'
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
