What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I'm guessing you fr0d0 and Ryft are presuppositionalists? If so, what does that entail about the way you evaluate arguments of an empirical nature for and against the Bible? For instance, supposing I had arguments and evidence that Jesus wasn't crucified (I don't really but suppose I do), would you attempt to deal with the evidence and my interpretation of it? Perhaps even cite counter-evidence to support that Jesus was crucified?

Are you concerned at all with there being evidence to support your beliefs? Or is that not a concern for you? Could you have absolutely no evidence in order to believe to the things you do?

[fr0d0]

Just because 'x' is commonly defined as 'y' it does not follow that we should accept that 'x' be defined as 'y.'

Very good. We agree. Did we ever disagree on this? No.

The historicity is important. Personally I defer to those more knowledgeable than myself.

[Hoc est Corpus]

The one thing that would disprove/prove Christianity for me would be when we discover another planet with intellegent life. I would assume that God would have visted this other planet as well and that they would have a similar story about a "Jesus" figure that taught the same things. I don't know if this would 100% disprove Christianity for me, as maybe "Jesus" could still visit this planet in the future, but it would for sure get me to re-think my beliefs.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Just because 'x' is commonly defined as 'y' it does not follow that we should accept that 'x' be defined as 'y.'

Very good. We agree. Did we ever disagree on this? No.

Then stop committing the fallacy!

Please sir, explain why we should accept that angels et al (the 'x') be defined as non-empirical (the 'y').

The historicity is important. Personally I defer to those more knowledgeable than myself.

Well, at least you hold evidence to be relevant. I had my doubts. So what was the evidence if any that convinced you angels et all exist? If you don't need evidence, what was the thought process?

[fr0d0]

Then stop committing the fallacy!

I never ever committed it. You misconstrued it. I don't doubt that you'll continue to accuse people of it without reason.

[Zone]

I asked a Christian that exact question once. She responded by telling me she'd believe it if she died and then realized there was no afterlife.

Who wants to point out the vast number of flaws to that thinking?

I'm sure she would feel disappointed about not existing in a non-existent afterlife.

[fr0d0]

Please sir, explain why we should accept that angels et al (the 'x') be defined as non-empirical (the 'y').

You mean how do I understand that to be a reality, where you do not. Why is my world view not limited to the empirically provable. The detail that Ryft was expanding on that you say you find so unsatisfactory?

---

So what was the evidence if any that convinced you angels et all exist? If you don't need evidence, what was the thought process?

What kind of evidence are you talking about?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Please sir, explain why we should accept that angels et al (the 'x') be defined as non-empirical (the 'y').

You mean how do I understand that to be a reality, where you do not. Why is my world view not limited to the empirically provable. The detail that Ryft was expanding on that you say you find so unsatisfactory?

What? No. That's not at all what I asked. Angels = non-empirical. Interstellar spaceship = empirical. Why? It's a pretty simple question.

So what was the evidence if any that convinced you angels et all exist? If you don't need evidence, what was the thought process?

What kind of evidence are you talking about?

I'll take anything if you have it. What conviced you angels et al exist? Do you even have a reason?

---

Then stop committing the fallacy!

I never ever committed it. You misconstrued it. I don't doubt that you'll continue to accuse people of it without reason.

What then was all your talk about what is commonly accepted? Why did you reference a dictionary? What did I miss?

[fr0d0]

Angels = non-empirical. Interstellar spaceship = empirical. Why? It's a pretty simple question.

Why?! lol

42?

Dude, you presumed something we commonly define as empirical, only purely imaginary. OF COURSE what we are talking about from biblical reference is not imaginary. Loop to Ryft 's answer once more.

---

What then was all your talk about what is commonly accepted? Why did you reference a dictionary? What did I miss?

I'm losing patience with you now. The dictionary reference floored your accusation of fallacy. That there is no problem referring to common definitions in speech that do not then need empirical evidence to be made in that way. Of course holding a Christian world view where such concepts form ones reality don't fit with your declared world view. As Ryft is starting to explain this to you, I do not wish to confuse you further with my take. Ryft is far better at explaining himself than I am. I just wish you'd give him the opportunity to continue.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Angels = non-empirical. Interstellar spaceship = empirical. Why? It's a pretty simple question.

Why?! lol

42?

Dude, you presumed something we commonly define as empirical, only purely imaginary. OF COURSE what we are talking about from biblical reference is not imaginary. Loop to Ryft 's answer once more.

How did "imaginary" get into all of this? I never said angels et al are imaginary. Did I ever equate "non-empirical" with imaginary? "Non-empirical" means that the nature of the object in question cannot be shown to exist through any empirical means such as observation and physical evidence because these things are not a part of the natural world. They are a part of some non-physical world beyond our reach.

Maybe there is such a world and maybe angels et al are in said non physical world but why suppose so? Why is it not legitimate for me to claim that my interstellar spaceship is a "non-empirical" object that cannot be tested while it is legitimate for you to claim that angels et al are? What's the difference? Or are you content to continue with your asserstion?

What then was all your talk about what is commonly accepted? Why did you reference a dictionary? What did I miss?

I'm losing patience with you now. The dictionary reference floored your accusation of fallacy. That there is no problem referring to common definitions in speech that do not then need empirical evidence to be made in that way. Of course holding a Christian world view where such concepts form ones reality don't fit with your declared world view. As Ryft is starting to explain this to you, I do not wish to confuse you further with my take. Ryft is far better at explaining himself than I am. I just wish you'd give him the opportunity to continue.

You never linked to a dictionary definition. What word would I look up?