*sigh* What I'm trying to say here, is that you can question the premises of a conclusion, which in turn question the premises of that conclusion that is used as a premises used for another concluiton, repeatedly until you reach a dead end.( In which in this case you have to assume it's true without any premises to justify it otherwise all the conclusions following up will render false.) If it isn't a dead end, but rather continues in a infinite behavior like faction, than how do you know that isn't any false conclusions that is used as a premises following after, that is simply out of your reach?
Frankly if you trying to "owned" them by asking a question of "how can you tell?" without them resorting predicable yet understandable answers which is the result of their (to-them) self-evident philosophical worldview that they used as a premises for their conclusions, while thinking that you don't have any that you consider to be self-evident philosophical worldview, and every concluiton that you have doesn't rely on any self-evident philosophical worldview, that every conclusion that you have is back with it's own premises, which in turn think that the conclusions used in as a premises in turn have it's own premises in a self-evident contradictory belief that the infinite like chain is without any false conclusion that is used as a premises for other contradictory.
I can't help to think of the pathetic person insecurity that gain the feeling of security by pointing out in a form of a question, "how can you tell" while ignoring his own.
By all means tell us what are you trying to achieve here by questioning the Christians? Frankly you spun my curiosity.
