View Single Post
Unread 3 Jan 2007, 23:00   #56
Ste
Bored
 
Ste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nottm ->Shef ->Croydon ->Manc ->Durham ->Sheffield
Posts: 6,506
Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Ste has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: The Scientific Proof of Life After Death

The argument on the other forum is like banging your head against a brick wall.

I'll post a little here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mambo
If you think human reasoning is sound, and yet I, as a human, have reasoned that God does not exist-what is your problem with that? I have exactly the same "god given" human reasoning as you, yet I come to a different conclusion. Come on, it's hardly rocket science-the argument is circular, whenther you use it "for" or "against" God. Do at least try to keep up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckfish
I think MY human reasoning is sound, as I can account for its soundness. I think YOUR human reason dies in a viscious circle.

Like I said, you don't have to like the way I justify the validity of my human reasoning, but at least I have justification. You trust the validity of your reasoning on blind faith.

I have stated how I justify the validity of MY reasoning. Since you can't justify YOUR reasoning, arguing against MY reasoning hardly makes sense.
(and it makes your condescension all the more amusing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobart
So you've finally accepted that you cannot prove God through all of your "how do you account for..." word games, that we all have to trust that our reasoning is sound, and the best we can do is chose the answer that best fits our own reasoning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckfish

Not at all. The proof I offer is an 'indirect proof.' The fact that reasoning exists is proof that God exists, as God is the precondition for reasoning.

One cannot DIRECTLY prove that God exists as there is no authority higher than God to which one can appeal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobart
But how do you know your reasoning that it comes from God is correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckfish

My presupposition that God exists, and that the Bible is true, allows me to know that my reasoning is sound.

Again, you can argue against my presuppositions (which, no doubt, is all you will do), but you cannot account for the reasoning which allows you to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobart
No it doesn't. It allows you to assume that your reasoning is sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckfish

Not according to my presupposition. Remember I presuppose that the Bible is true. The Bible tells me that I CAN know things for certain.
Bloody hell...
__________________
Wise men write because they have something to write about; fools write because they have to write something. - Plato

yeh so Plastic Brilliance is now known as FOXYSTOAT - Come on by and check it out!
Ste is offline   Reply With Quote