Lighthouse

Used to race 10th scale RC cars when I was in my early teens and have really gotten into it again in the last year or so. It's a great laugh.

And still people bite. It would almost be funny if it wasn't really really really tedious.

He's a Pompey fan on a wind up. Can't believe so many people on here keep biting. There's no point arguing with what he posts, because he is only doing it to get a reaction. He doesn't actually think what he posts.

And 2 assists.

Only a dinlo wouldn't want a striker who scored 4 goals in league 1 last year? Fair enough.

Surely the beginnings and end of time and the edges of the universe also create an infinite regression. What was before the big bang. How and when will the universe end. Surely it's impossible for the universe to just end, but then it's impossible it can go on forever too. Yes it creates an infinite regression, which is partly why it can't be answered. I'm willing to bet that the human mind is so primative it cannot comprehend the biggest questions and answers in the universe at all. There are probably questions out there we will never even think of because we have no comprehension what-so-ever of the science behind it. With that, I'm bored with this topic. If you want to book any of my philosophy speeches for an after dinner event, PM me.

Well of course it is. Religion is just fear and fantasy, based on stories which are thousands of years old. It's completely irrelevant when it comes to any potential 'God' in the universe.

Finally, we have come to an agreement. Refering to your first paragraph, disproving the existence of 'God' is easy. You simply have to observe the entirity of the universe and fully explain every single one of it's functions and the science behind it. Nobody can and I doubt anybody ever will, hence you cannot disprove the existence of 'God'. I'm NOT saying this means he exists, but it leaves the door open to the possibility. If you could disprove the existence of 'God' there would be no religion (but for a few hillbillies and Islamists wallowing in denial and fear). We can't, hence there is.

It's plausible because the universe is incredibly large and complex. It is perfectly plausible that there is something intelligent behind it. And I haven't missed the point of the analogy. I know the burden of proof is with the hypothesiser. I have no proof, therefore I am not saying 'God' definitely exists.

The difference being that it is perfectly plausible that there is an intelligent entity controlling the universe. There is however, no way a man made object could be orbiting the sun unless we put it there. Given that we haven't (to the best of my knowledge anyway) then it is impossible for a teapot to be orbitting the sun. This is unless after the big bang, some atoms aligned them selves perfectly to form a teapot, although that is around a 1 in 10^26 (1 in 100 million million million million) chance by my reckoing.

Haven't a clue. None of this is proof as to the existence of 'God' however.

You seem to be painting 'God' as some kind of careless zookeeper, which is odd and random. So you're implying that if 'God' was real, he would have kept the dodo and some dinosaurs alive? Why?

The Bible is a 2000 year old story book. Just because it claims to be the word of God, does not make it so. I'm not arguing the case for the man who made the world in 7 days, parted the Red Sea etc. I'm talking about a hypothetical higher being of superior intelligence.

Are people reading my arguments through some kind of e-blender, because everyone seems to be opposed to statements I never made. I'll give it one last try. Simple as I can in nice easy bullet points: 1) if people chose to believe in God, that's there choice. No problem. 2) if people chose NOT to believe in God, again no problem. 3) there is bugger all evidence EITHER WAY to prove OR disprove the existence of God. It is entirely down to belief. 4) based on point 3, you cannot categorically say a God exists. 5) on the same principle you cannot say it doesn't exist. 6) a lack of evidence for something doesn't mean it can't exist. We have no evidence of a God, 50 years ago they had no evidence of the planet Pluto. You can disprove anything if you have evidence it doesn't exist. You have no proof that there is no God, it's just based on the fact that it doesn't fit your incredibly limited knowledge (I'm not being personal, as a species there is a massive amount we do not know about the universe). It is a belief, which everyone is entitled to, but you cannot tell others a God doesn't exist.

Here we go again assuming God is the religious entity we read about in the Bible. Why would it want life in the universe? Why would it give 2 sh*ts what humans feel? What makes you think it "designed" the human eye when this has already been proven to have been part of evolution? The Bible is a bit like me writing a book about you and saying, "he's 14ft tall, has green and purple striped skin and can p*ss marmalade". None of it is true, but it doesn't mean you don't exist, just that people have inaccurate perceptions of what you are. Hence it's is possible or even likely that mankind will never know. Doesn't mean it can't be true, it just means we're ignorant. You seem to be using this ignorance as proof that a 'God' can't exist. To put my POV accross in its simplest form: An intelligent higher power (a 'God' if you will) could exist.

I think with their defence, Posh will be like us in 07/08 and 04/05. I'd rather they went up than Udders in terms of easier competition.

I seem to be fighting a losing battle trying to make this point. I am not arguing the case for God the religious entity who made the world in 7 days etc. etc. I am saying there COULD well be an intelligent entity behind the bigger questions in the universe. I can't prove it, hence I am not saying this is the case. However by the same logic you cannot categorically say there is no intelligent entity. You're implying that because you can't prove something, it cannot be true. That's ridiculous.

So you're saying that nothing can possibly be true unless it can be explained by mankind's extremely limited understanding of the universe? And my 'fact' behind this is the alternative being a trillion to 1 shot that the universe "just happened". I think you're the one who doesn't understand this (as well as being needlessly patronising).

I agree. That is half of my POV. However I think people who say he/she/it 100% doesn't exist are equally at fault. I don't have a problem with belief systems. If people do or do not believe in God is up to them, but you cannot know either way. Regarding your tennis ball scenario; I would have to admit that it's possible you have a tennis ball behind your back, but I don't have any evidence to prove it either way. 500 years ago we had no knowledge of dark matter, antineutrinos or Bruce Forsyth but it doesn't mean they weren't there. I'd say the answer to that lies in the ability to question your beliefs. People who I'd say have been brainwashed (Islamists, EDL, Pompey fans) clearly have no concept of what they're doing is just wrong.

Wooooah, hang on... I'm not against any of science's theories. I am very scientifically and logically minded in general. I know we can explain a heck of a lot through our current understanding of the universe, but there is a sh*t load of stuff we do not yet know. It's like when the Police say 50% of domestic violence goes unreported. How do they know? You do not know what you do not know (Sorry, I know that sounds a bit Donald Rumsfeld). I know there is very little evidence of a God, but that doesn't mean there can't be one (I'm talking about a 'higher being' here, not a religious entity). I agree the burden of proof should be on the hypothesiser, but saying "there isn't a God" is as much a hypothesis as saying there is. If I told you there was a coin in my pocket, which of these would you say was true: a) There is definitely a coin in my pocket because I said so. b) There definitely is not a coin in my pocket because you have no evidence to suggest there is. Most religion falls into category A, whereas atheism falls into category B. I don't see how either of these can be correct, so it has to be another option: c) It is possible there could be a coin in my pocket. You cannot say either way. If there is, you don't know if it's a 10p, 50p etc. If may turn out that it's not actually a coin at all, but a button or a small stone. Now my brain hurts...

Firstly it is not incorrect. It really is phenomenally unlikely that the universe 'just happened'. I never said that couldn't happen, only that it is highly unlikely. My personal belief is that there is an intelligent creative force behind it all. It's as valid an oppinion as any other. Secondly, nobody has a good enough grasp of physics to even come close to answering the biggest questions in the universe. Yes we know about the big bang, etc. but there is so much more that we just don't know. The fact that we are here does not prove anything. We have a vague idea about how we are here, that's about it.

I'm refering to God as in a higher being or creative, intelligent entity. I don't believe he created the world in 7 days etc. I'm open to the suggestion of a God, agnostic if you will. However I think to say definitively it can't exist is pretty ignorant. The 'logic' behind it being that there has got to be a one in a trillion chance of the universe existing as it does. I think it's highly unlikely that all this "just happened", it's more likely there is something intelligent behind it all. Put simply, I'm open to the concept of a 'God', but I don't believe in religion.

Impossible to say either way. B*gger all evidence to support either argument.

Rooney is like a potato on so many levels.

It's odd. I'm in favour of the death penalty, yet I find myself opposed to this kind of thing. I guess it's because the death penalty is 'humane' whereas putting acid in someone's eyes is just barbaric. Even if they did the same first.