If you can't figure out what's wrong with #2, you are not thinking or engaging in good faith.
— Lionino

You should state what's wrong with it. — Hallucinogen

(2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true. — Hallucinogen

:roll: Well, this is like saying

'If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true.'

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/903808

Many people have had experiences of visiting Heaven or Hell, or seeing an angel during prayer. Others still, see visions of Christian-specific events or symbols. This is an argument that proceeds on this basis, that they serve as evidence for Christianity. — Hallucinogen

Too subjective, you need some objective way to verify that the experience is veridical.

If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true. — 180 Proof

Do you think there is something wrong with that?

Jediism (Christianity) is not a collection of propositions, that is where the fallacy is. It is a collection of propositions, stories, commandments, and historical accounts. Within that collection there is a proposition X, we find evidence for X. It is evidence for X, not for the whole collection (the concept of evidence doesn't even apply to things such as stories and commandments anyway). The Bible says the Sun sets on the West. We see the sun sets on the West. Is that evidence of Christianity? Of course not.

Sure, I agree. That's a good point, but one @180 Proof didn't make. There were a number of things that @180 Proof could have meant, I was just wondering which one it was. I respond to 180's posts quite a lot because his style is ambiguous, and when people miss his point, he invariably blames the reader, something no good writer should ever do. And 180 is a very good writer some of the time.

:up: :up: