What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[pocaracas]

But TRUTH prevails! YOU ARE RIGHT!! We are held to a higher standard. And even you, in your non-believing nature must profess the thruth in Christ! This is amazing actually!!

Truth... there's that word...
Are you sure you know what it means?
I don't like that word... it's a very slippery one, at best.

Why do you say "truth prevails"? Why not say "reality prevails"?

[The Grand Nudger]

England Prevails!

[Angrboda]

Jesus saves! But Gretzky gets the rebound and scores!

[Ryft]

To the Christians on the forum: What one (and only one) thing would, if shown to be true, disprove Christianity entirely for you?

The existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live.

---

---

If Jesus really did pull off the Second Coming, I am willing to bet that a majority of Christians would think he is an imposter if he acts in any way different from how they believe he should, or if he is not the long-haired gentle-faced caucasian man with a beard as he is generally depicted in Christian art.

It is almost as if you have read the novel The Last Day (1998) by Glenn Kleier, which was a really fascinating what-if story along those very lines.

---

---

If the new rule had read "dying or similar supernatural event" you would have a valid point. That you deliberately chose to interpret the sentence the way you did speaks volumes about your integrity and honesty. That you underscored your own deliberate misinterpretation with derisory laughter merely says you are a git. No wonder there's no agreement on more complex matters if you deflect the line of inquiry with the wording of a simple eight-word sentence. I submit that any meaningful dialogue with a person known for behaving in this sort of dickish way to avoid discussion is going to be impossible.

I wish I could give multiple kudos upon kudos for that one.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

To the Christians on the forum: What one (and only one) thing would, if shown to be true, disprove Christianity entirely for you?

The existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live.

Firstly, the supposed absence of such a worldview does not entail the truthfulness of Christianity.

"self-attesting"

If by "self-attesting" you mean has "evidence" to back up its core claims such as resurrection, then I'd argue the evidence for that is shabbier than that for aliens crashing in Roswell.

Even if the resurrection occurred, it is a complete non-sequitor to conclude that Jesus was divine and that Christianity is true. For all we know it could have been a trick by interstellar scientists testing the gullibility of pre-modern humans.

"logically coherent"
It has been shown numerous times that there are contradictions in the bible. The only responses by apologists have been ad hoc rationalizations.

"consistent with itself and the world in which we live"
Something can be false but still be internally consistent. Fantasy stories can be internally consistent but they're not true in reality. As for external consistency, I have never seen devils, nor angels, nor heaven or hell, nor this "spirit" that I'm suppose to have, nor do I see people being brought back to life, etc. Hardly what I would call external consistency.

[genkaus]

The existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live.

Firstly, the supposed absence of such a worldview does not entail the truthfulness of Christianity.

"self-attesting"

If by "self-attesting" you mean has "evidence" to back up its core claims such as resurrection, then I'd argue the evidence for that is shabbier than that for aliens crashing in Roswell.

Even if the resurrection occurred, it is a complete non-sequitor to conclude that Jesus was divine and that Christianity is true. For all we know it could have been a trick by interstellar scientists testing the gullibility of pre-modern humans.

"logically coherent"
It has been shown numerous times that there are contradictions in the bible. The only responses by apologists have been ad hoc rationalizations.

"consistent with itself and the world in which we live"
Something can be false but still be internally consistent. Fantasy stories can be internally consistent but they're not true in reality. As for external consistency, I have never seen devils, nor angels, nor heaven or hell, nor this "spirit" that I'm suppose to have, nor do I see people being brought back to life, etc. Hardly what I would call external consistency.

Now this is an interesting conundrum. First of all, the Christian worldview is not self-attesting, logically coherent or consistent with itself and the world we live in and if the question in the thread was "What criteria would you choose your worldview by" - it'd be rejected entirely on this basis.

But that was not the question asked. The Christians are not asked about the criteria by which they chose Christianity or by which they rejected the other worldviews. The answer here may very well be that since none of the worldviews completely satisfy the requirements, one has just chosen one that he finds most comforting. While there definitely is hypocrisy present, it is not relevant to the question at hand.

On the other hand, the criteria itself is suspect. What qualifies as logical, consistent and true would itself depend on one's chosen worldview. Commonly, we accept the naturalist worldview while determining this, which would make the question loaded on both sides. When Tegh asks "What, if proven to be true", he is implying truth as judged by naturalist worldview. And Ryft would be judging the "consistency with the world we live in" of all other worldviews by his accepted Christian one. I don't see there being any satisfactory conclusion here as long as the premises themselves are in conflict.

[Ryft]

Firstly, the supposed absence of such a worldview does not entail the truthfulness of Christianity.

Correct. The truthfulness of Christianity entails the absence of such a worldview.

Look, the question you had asked was, "What one thing, if shown to be true, would disprove Christianity entirely for you?" (paraphrased). That is the question I was answering. Since biblical Christianity presents itself as necessarily true, entailing the unintelligibility, incoherence, falsehood, or inconsistency of any non-Christian worldview, in whole or part, it would be disproved entirely by the existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live. That would render Christianity probably true, thus possibly false; and a necessarily true worldview that is possibly false is a self-contradiction. How could you fail to track my direction here? I have been gone too long: You have become sloppy since we last engaged one another.

Let's continue examining your response.

If by "self-attesting" you mean has evidence to back up its core claims ...

No, that is not what I mean by self-attesting. A worldview is self-attesting when it does not need to reach outside itself to account for or explain this, that, or some other thing. If a worldview has to borrow intellectual capital from without, then it is not self-attesting.

Even if the resurrection occurred, it is a complete non-sequitur to conclude that Jesus was divine and that Christianity is true.

Irrelevant. No such argument exists between us.

It has been shown numerous times that there are contradictions in the Bible. The only responses by apologists have been ad hoc rationalizations.

That would be an interesting discussion to have, this idea of yours that apologists have provided "only ... ad hoc rationalizations" (in response to alleged contradictions in the Bible). But since that would derail the subject of this thread I will not pursue it here.

Something can be false but still be internally consistent.

True. And not a little ironic that you would say this so very soon after Stimbo chastised Drich for dismantling a simple, cohesive sentence in order to score some rhetorical point. Look once again, but more closely, at what I had actually said: "consistent both with itself and the world in which we live" (emphasis added). "Fantasy stories can be internally consistent but they're not true in reality," you said. Indeed, and thus they are consistent with themselves but not the world in which we live. You are going to have to do a lot better than this, Tegh—an order of magnitude better than this.

As for external consistency, I have never seen ... [snip rest]

Irrelevant. It does not matter to my answer what you have and have not seen.

Step up your game, Tegh. Beer league debate won't fly worth shit against me.

---

---

When Tegh asks "What, if proven to be true", he is implying truth as judged by naturalist worldview. And Ryft would be judging the "consistency with the world we live in" of all other worldviews by his accepted Christian one.

I want to correct this inadvertent misrepresentation. I would not presuppose the truth of my view when evaluating another view; such would be a question-begging move.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Firstly, the supposed absence of such a worldview does not entail the truthfulness of Christianity.

Correct. The truthfulness of Christianity entails the absence of such a worldview.

Look, the question you had asked was, "What one thing, if shown to be true, would disprove Christianity entirely for you?" (paraphrased). That is the question I was answering. Since biblical Christianity presents itself as necessarily true, entailing the unintelligibility, incoherence, falsehood, or inconsistency of any non-Christian worldview, in whole or part, it would be disproved entirely by the existence of a single non-Christian worldview that is self-attesting, logically coherent, and consistent both with itself and the world in which we live. That would render Christianity probably true, thus possibly false; and a necessarily true worldview that is possibly false is a self-contradiction. How could you fail to track my direction here? I have been gone too long: You have become sloppy since we last engaged one another.

The theists since you left have been pathetic. Sorry to disappoint.

If by "self-attesting" you mean has evidence to back up its core claims ...

No, that is not what I mean by self-attesting. A worldview is self-attesting when it does not need to reach outside itself to account for or explain this, that, or some other thing. If a worldview has to borrow intellectual capital from without, then it is not self-attesting.

This explanation is barely intelligible. Give me an example where a worldview borrows intellectual capital "from without." I have no idea what that means.

Even if the resurrection occurred, it is a complete non-sequitur to conclude that Jesus was divine and that Christianity is true.

Irrelevant. No such argument exists between us.

Very well.

It has been shown numerous times that there are contradictions in the Bible. The only responses by apologists have been ad hoc rationalizations.

That would be an interesting discussion to have, this idea of yours that apologists have provided "only ... ad hoc rationalizations" (in response to alleged contradictions in the Bible). But since that would derail the subject of this thread I will not pursue it here.

Fine.

Something can be false but still be internally consistent.

True. And not a little ironic that you would say this so very soon after Stimbo chastised Drich for dismantling a simple, cohesive sentence in order to score some rhetorical point. Look once again, but more closely, at what I had actually said: "consistent both with itself and the world in which we live" (emphasis added). "Fantasy stories can be internally consistent but they're not true in reality," you said. Indeed, and thus they are consistent with themselves but not the world in which we live. You are going to have to do a lot better than this, Tegh—an order of magnitude better than this.

I never missed your conjunction but I can I see how my original response could be misconstrued to be read that way.

As for external consistency, I have never seen ... [snip rest]

Irrelevant. It does not matter to my answer what you have and have not seen.

You have a very bad habit of missing the point to obvious rhetorical devices, figures of speech, and analogies.

You said the bible is "consistent" with the world. You read some bible stories and then look out your window. Does the bible look very consistent with the world? Do you see angels and demons flying about? Do you see God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. Do you even see or detect your soul? Have you seen the afterlife? Have you seen hell? Have you seen heaven? When was the last time you saw a man get raised from the dead?

Step up your game, Tegh. Beer league debate won't fly worth shit against me.

I don't drink. And be more intelligible and less obsessive compulsive for once.

[genkaus]

I want to correct this inadvertent misrepresentation. I would not presuppose the truth of my view when evaluating another view; such would be a question-begging move.

Then tell me, what presuppositions do you accept while determining the truth of a worldview?

[Zen Badger]

Since biblical Christianity presents itself as necessarily true,

Based on what?

The Bible?

Since this book is almost entirely at odds with what we know about the world and reality........

Got anything else?