What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Ryft]

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."

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.

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. 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.)

Of course our worldviews do not comport with one another and obviously they do not meet each other's criteria. Why on earth would you expect them to? And you do, by demanding that my worldview and its claims comport with yours and its criteria. You need to recognize the fundamental antithesis here; and if you esteem logic and reason you need to recognize the fallacious nature of begging the question; otherwise I should thank you for supplying proof to my claim if you esteem such things only when it's convenient, or if you don't esteem them but nevertheless object to contradictions and inconsistencies.

No, you're again twisting my words to avoid the question. The question wasn't about knowledge. It was asking you for some proof of the supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion.

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").

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)?

If you are content to simply assume the truth of your worldview, even when evaluating another, which is fallacious, then so be it. But stop expecting the claims of my worldview to comport with the criteria of yours. Spoiler alert: They won't.

I don't? You can legitimately make claims about what I do and do not know? Is that a two-way street?

If you know these things exist, then please present your proof and/or arguments for these things and specifically the beings and things of the Christian religion.

You did not answer the question asked. Interesting, and noted.

I'm not sure what fallacy you're talking about. I don't see one. I was only asking for a logical argument in the absence of empirical evidence.

The question-begging fallacy, assuming what the nature of reality is when the question regards what is consistent with reality.

--------------------------------------------------

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?

---

---

So what exactly is the difference between biblical and non-biblical Christianity?

Biblical Christianity is defined by and accountable to the divine authority of the Holy Bible, such that "all religious controversies are to be settled by Scripture, and by Scripture alone. All decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men collectively or individually, are similarly to be accepted or rejected according to the verdict of the Scripture given to us by the Holy Spirit. In that verdict faith finds its final rest." [1] Also see for example the 1996 Cambridge Declaration which affirms the five solas, one of which is sola scriptura. [2] So any Christianity which has another authority equal or superior to the Bible is something other than biblical Christianity (for it has a different final authority).

----------
[1] A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 Rewritten in Modern English (Carey Publications, 1975), http://www.founders.org/library/bcf/bcf-1.html

[2] Cambridge Declaration (Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1996), http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/article/0,...64,00.html

---

---

You're sure? As in, you don't know but they must be similar to currently existing religions?

Huh? How the hell did you get THAT out of what I said? Did you even read it?

Oh, rebellion against God and his authority? But back then they weren't aware of your Christian God.

They weren't? Empirical evidence, please.

(I am appealing to what I presume you recognize as authoritative. If empirical evidence is not authoritative on your view, then forgive my presumption.)

Or do you have some intel that supports that they were aware of it?

Or perhaps you were taking a fallacious route, which is possible to infer from this (e.g., "It is true that they were not aware of your Christian God, unless you can prove otherwise"). [1]

Well then, please define your god for me, so I don't have to fabricate anything.

So you are admittedly ignorant about the God of biblical Christianity? Please do explain how objections to X can be intelligible when raised by someone ignorant about X. Or at least tell me, please, that you can see the ironic parallel here with young-earth creationists whose objections against biological evolution are embarrassing as a result of their ignorance about it.

So just to make it clear, you claim Christianity "does not have to borrow any intellectual currency from without itself in order to account for some thing or other," right? Or does this only apply to your version of Christianity?

First, I don't have a version of Christianity. I am not creative enough to invent one. Second, it applies only to biblical Christianity.

Yes, I am ignorant of the Bible. I'm also ignorant of the Quran, Torah, Vedas, the [Mesopotamian] scrolls, etc. ... Are you equally fluent in all of the existing holy texts?

Your honesty is refreshing. And no, I am not equally fluent in the Vedas, for example. But then I also don't make boneheaded claims about the beliefs of those whose texts I am ignorant about—unlike you, who said to me that "any event that defies a naturalistic interpretation by you is automatically attributed to this divine entity," a statement so erroneous that it uniquely demonstrated the degree of your ignorance.

Are you implying that God passed his message to all of mankind but they failed to interpret and record it properly, except wherever your God is from?

Huh? How the hell did you infer THAT implication?

You committed the argumentum e silentio fallacy and I was pointing that out, in the hopes that you would see the mistake and attempt to reframe the question but logically this time. You implied that God is not a logically coherent concept because this "all-powerful deity ... can't pass a damn message straight to all of mankind." This commits the aforementioned fallacy, for it is invalid to conclude that he can't from the fact that he hasn't.

Please derp less. A lot less.

Ah, my fallacy of exaggeration.

That was not the fallacy you committed, which was actually the appeal to ridicule. This fallacy is committed when one "presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration." [2]

And, again with refreshing honesty, you admit this: "And yes, I am committing the fallacy of putting your Bible on the same pedestal as fairy tales." I value the honesty, and appreciate the proof you are supplying to my claims about the incoherence and inconsistency of views other than biblical Christianity. As I said previously, "You do grasp and understand logical relevance, right? (Perhaps not, given the ease and consistency with which you commit one fallacy after another.)"

You're the one who claims that your religion is "consistent with the world in which we live." I merely wish you to answer the question of "How so?"

Yes, I sort of gathered that much already. Doesn't really make that any more relevant, though. Sorry.

(See my response to Tegh about the untenable nature of insisting that my worldview and its claims comport with yours and its criteria.)

But you fail to answer my question, providing some convenient cop-out.

If I fail to answer some question, it is usually because I have failed to recognize it as a question or understand what it was asking, in which case you simply need to reword it. Otherwise I do not fail to answer questions; I might answer them in a way that you find unsatisfying or I might ignore them (and sometimes with an explanation of why, such as it being logically irrelevant to the question at hand, regardless of its interest to you).

You assert something and then say it's irrelevant and unnecessary to expose your "logical reasoning" behind that assertion. Why?

Uh, because it's irrelevant or unnecessary? The answer was kind of right there.

On the other hand, you claim that Christianity is "necessarily true." What is the "logical reasoning" that got you to this conclusion? (If you already typed it somewhere else, just point to there.)

Do a search for the involved and in-depth discussion between myself and the founder, Adrian, on the subject of TAG (transcendental argument for God). It was over three years ago but still here somewhere. It contains more than enough information and detail.

----------
[1] See the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, claiming something is true unless and until proven false.

[2] Wikipedia, s.v. "Appeal to ridicule," http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl...=522476613