What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

This is painful. We should have fleshed this out in chat, rather than spam the thread.

#1 you cited an example off the cuff to compare with a well defined subject: angels. "So... what is the comparison with shit example with no substance that I just pulled out of the air, and your well defined example. Please elaborate... " ...Q Ryft, when we let him.

What is "substance"? And what does the supposed lack of substance have to do with your inability to answer the question?

Remember the question? Why call angels non- empirical and my spaceship empirical?

And here's another one for you to chew on: How do you know when to define an object as either being empirical or non-empirical?

#2 The OED is an example of an authority. You made the accusation of a fallacy of reference to authority. The OED is an authority too.. hence - fallacy fails.

The OED is only an authority on the traditional meaning of words. It only has the standard definition but it doesn't give you a reason why to accept the definition. Dictionaries don't reason.

We all have accepted authorities.

Except I don't put the assertion of an authority into an argument and pretend I have a valid deductive argument.

You and I can accept most definitions in the OED I suspect.

That's irrevelant. If next year's edition of the OED was changed to say that "God is understood by Christians to look like a frog" would you suddenly believe God was an all powerful frog? No. You'd contest the definition.

Christianity is an authority I would accept, and you wouldn't. The problem here is the transference of understanding from those of us within that group and those outside.. ie you.

No the problem here is your refusal to explain the seeming inconsistency in the way you define different entities.

---

This is the fallacy btw: http://logicallyfallacious.com/index.php...definition