>>62

>You did. It happened a few thousand years ago.

And your evidence for this would be?….

>If we had, then you would be totally going "OH BUT 2+2 CANT BE 4, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!!" on me.

Put your worldview where your mouth is. According to your worldview adding 2 things to 2 things could have equalled 5 things?!?

>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?

Not quite, you could not make sense out of anything you say if my worldview were not true.

>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.

Um no, >>24 is assuming lots of things

1. That your senses fool you ‘all the time.’
2. That you can ‘obviously not trust your senses’ because of 1.
3. That any proof based on observation can be doubted.
4. That the sentence “The only thing you can prove without observation, only using logic, is that you can doubt everything besides your doubt.” is true.
5. That nature is uniform such that the words >>24 uses to construct his sentences mean the same things they did 5 seconds ago.

> 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,

Never said you were, but since in your worldview morality is arbitrary there is no ultimate reason one should not rape, murder, or molest.