>I must have missed the meeting.
You did. It happened a few thousand years ago.
>Thankfully we didn’t agree that 2 + 2 = 5.
If we had, then you would be totally going "OH BUT 2+2 CANT BE 4, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!!" on me.
>Prove this please.
I already did in >>38 and I'm not going to repeat myself just because you feel like playing stupid.
Look at the statement above that sentence. Then, look at the statement below that sentence. They say
>Using your ahem agreed upon laws of mathematics and logic no doubt.
Well, yes. Glad you finally understood this.
>However, my faith gives an account for the validity of my human reasoning, yours does not.
So, let me rephrase that: "If you don't believe what I say, what we both say does not make sense, because in that case nothing is provable.". Oh wait, didn't you just say exactly what I was trying to tell you?
By the way, read through >>24 again, and tell me: Which part this can you prove wrong without automatically proving yourself wrong? Since >>24 is only assuming logic, and nothing else, you would have to proove that there are no laws of logic. This leaves you with two possibilities: One, >>24 is right, which makes your arguments invalid. Two, >>24 is wrong, which makes your arguments, which are based on logic, invalid.
> 1. You obviously cannot trust your senses, they fool you all the time (Optical illusions etc...).
> 2. Because of 1), any proof that is based on observation can be doubted.
> 3. The only thing you can prove without observation, only using logic, is that you can doubt everything besides your doubt.
>I was not proving the truth of the argument, I was showing the inconsistency of the person deny the universality of mathematics.
Well, you should better start trying to proove that you are right instead of just repeating the things you said over and over again and playing "I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING", because quite frankly, you're doing an awful job right now. Your posts are 70% bla and 30% content. Just cut the useless stuff, I'm sure you can do better.
And you STILL didn't say anything about >>24's part about morals.
>Including murderers, rapists, and molesters.
Jup, they can. You might not like this, but rapists probably have a whole lot of fun raping people, and . Which does, of course, not mean that I agree to raping, molesting and murdering, since I am neither a rapist, nor a murderer, nor a molester, which brings us to STOP TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO SAY THEY LIKE FUCKING CHILDREN TO DISCREDIT THEM. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL WHO CAN'T BACK HIS SHIT UP ANY OTHER WAY.