So if they all started at the same point, who twatted it with a hammer to get it all going?

 

Careful, you might be about to find religion.

Very mad party (VERY VERY MAD) but what a laught

A mad party where your webcam gets covered in bear? Sounds like you Devon folk know how to party, how do we all get an invite?

Is my spelling shit then

No way, it's tip top. Just the English language you obviously have problems with you mongtard!

Edited September 10, 200817 yr by dci_bwfc

No way it's tip top, it's just the English language you obviously have problems with you mongtard!

 

Is 'laught' an abbreviation for draught lager in Devon?

Leave him alone you beasts.

 

A few of us had a good laugh last night.

 

Leave him alone you beasts.

 

A few of us had a good laugh last night.

 

 

He's not wrong! Who's your money on?

Traf was quiet last night!

It was on the news this morning that the UK Government have funded this machine to the tune of ?500million.

 

All I can say is I hope we get value for money because I'm pretty sure that this amount of cash would have paid for a few more million illegal immigrants to come in and sponge off our social welfare departments.

Leave him alone you beasts.

 

A few of us had a good laugh last night.

 

Can a female poster (well volunteered NB) please encourage him to send them pictures, then post them on here just for a 'laught'.

 

I'm thinking.......

 

Can a female poster (well volunteered NB) please encourage him to send them pictures, then post them on here just for a 'laught'.

 

I'm thinking.......

 

Indeed, CWP. This poster obviously doesn't know me. I'll not be doing that, son!

Indeed, CWP. This poster obviously doesn't know me. I'll not be doing that, son!

oh well, worth a try! I've just got an image in my mind of this 'wild party' involving web cams and bears!

So if they all started at the same point, who twatted it with a hammer to get it all going?

 

Well done, you just stumbled upon the central philosophical problem with Physicists thinking they can provide a fundamental explanation. Unless we believe chains of causation with no beginning (which we don't, but if we did, would not be a real explanation anyway), we're left hoping that observable matter or energy can contain it's own necessity.

 

Put more graphically, all human observation occurs within a sealed box, and we have no access to information on the cause of our box. Even if we get perfect clarity on the characteristics of the box, we can's explain it. That's what always makes me smile about atheists ranting on about the ridiculous nature of faith. I find a faith in the physical existance of anything (why does there need to be anything at all?) without a creator (of indeterminate characteristics, other than that it contains the seeds of its own existance) quite bizzare. In fact, if we limit ourselves strictly to these characteristics, something of that nature must exist, independent of any other characteristics you may want to tack on to it.

There's a pea souper fog appeared today!

I reckon the end of the world has started!

There's a pea souper fog appeared today!

I reckon the end of the world has started!

 

Is it a pea souper fog or low cloud? Or high cloud and your part of Horwich is actually 35,000 feet higher due to them pesky boffins trying to end the world?

Well done, you just stumbled upon the central philosophical problem with Physicists thinking they can provide a fundamental explanation. Unless we believe chains of causation with no beginning (which we don't, but if we did, would not be a real explanation anyway), we're left hoping that observable matter or energy can contain it's own necessity.

 

Put more graphically, all human observation occurs within a sealed box, and we have no access to information on the cause of our box. Even if we get perfect clarity on the characteristics of the box, we can's explain it. That's what always makes me smile about atheists ranting on about the ridiculous nature of faith. I find a faith in the physical existance of anything (why does there need to be anything at all?) without a creator (of indeterminate characteristics, other than that it contains the seeds of its own existance) quite bizzare. In fact, if we limit ourselves strictly to these characteristics, something of that nature must exist, independent of any other characteristics you may want to tack on to it.

 

Sorry?

Sorry?

 

Scientists with no philosophical training, and big mouths designed to win funding grants, claim they will explain the universe, but by virtue of being in the universe, they do not have access to the information required to explain it.

Well done, you just stumbled upon the central philosophical problem with Physicists thinking they can provide a fundamental explanation. Unless we believe chains of causation with no beginning (which we don't, but if we did, would not be a real explanation anyway), we're left hoping that observable matter or energy can contain it's own necessity.

 

Put more graphically, all human observation occurs within a sealed box, and we have no access to information on the cause of our box. Even if we get perfect clarity on the characteristics of the box, we can's explain it. That's what always makes me smile about atheists ranting on about the ridiculous nature of faith. I find a faith in the physical existance of anything (why does there need to be anything at all?) without a creator (of indeterminate characteristics, other than that it contains the seeds of its own existance) quite bizzare. In fact, if we limit ourselves strictly to these characteristics, something of that nature must exist, independent of any other characteristics you may want to tack on to it.

 

Try thinking out of the box then. The only reason there is a thought process that there has to be a beginning is that the human mind cannot grasp or deal with the idea that there was not one.

 

The need for an explanation of creation or god comes from the fear of the unknown or more bluntly fear of death

Scientists with no philosophical training, and big mouths designed to win funding grants, claim they will explain the universe, but by virtue of being in the universe, they do not have access to the information required to explain it.

 

 

That's it - I've found God!

The only reason there is a thought process that there has to be a beginning is that the human mind cannot grasp or deal with the idea that there was not one.

 

That's pretty much how I see it. I remember reading Bryson's book "A short History of Nearly Everything" and that tried to debunk some of the theories of the universe - he did mention that it is pretty difficult, if not impossible for the human mind to grasp or understand some things relating to the Universe at large.............in fact, if truth be told, I failed to understand the majority of his book, and that was all put inb laymans terms!

Try thinking out of the box then. The only reason there is a thought process that there has to be a beginning is that the human mind cannot grasp or deal with the idea that there was not one.

 

The need for an explanation of creation or god comes from the fear of the unknown or more bluntly fear of death

 

I'm not going to go in to a great deal of detail, because I can't see it being worth my time, and I'm fairly happy to have left this behind at University, but a lack of any beginning meets the necessary criteria of an ex nihilo explanation in the same way as a causal one, so your objection doesn't actually object to what I wrote. As for your second pearl of wisdom, I didn't mention God, and the argument I laid out absolutely does not reach a conclusion which provides any comfort for people afraid of death. To go on a cod psychology line however, I do always wonder why religion is accused of a fear of death which it posits the possibility of eternal damnation, versus a quiet and final end, and it is the modern secular world which has developed an absolute obsession with physical health and spends a massive proportion of it's wealth extending life out as much as possible.

I'm not going to go in to a great deal of detail, because I can't see it being worth my time, and I'm fairly happy to have left this behind at University, but a lack of any beginning meets the necessary criteria of an ex nihilo explanation in the same way as a causal one, so your objection doesn't actually object to what I wrote. As for your second pearl of wisdom, I didn't mention God, and the argument I laid out absolutely does not reach a conclusion which provides any comfort for people afraid of death. To go on a cod psychology line however, I do always wonder why religion is accused of a fear of death which it posits the possibility of eternal damnation, versus a quiet and final end, and it is the modern secular world which has developed an absolute obsession with physical health and spends a massive proportion of it's wealth extending life out as much as possible.

 

Theology or Classics at Oxbridge? Which one gave you the ability to patronise all that stand before you?

 

To be honest its not what you write that I have any great objection to, we all are intitled to our belief systems, its the high handedness in which you deliever your arguement. I have no problems with questioning societies obsession with its secular manifesto at this point in our history and the plinth on which we put physical well being over the spiritual, trying to master things over which we currently do not command. Although I would say that this has always been the innate drive of mankind and allowed to become the global civilisation we are today. Whether you believe this to be a good thing or not is another matter.

 

It is in mankind's very being to keep questioning and my beliefs lie very much in the Glapagos rather than the Garden of Eden.

Well done, you just stumbled upon the central philosophical problem with Physicists thinking they can provide a fundamental explanation. Unless we believe chains of causation with no beginning (which we don't, but if we did, would not be a real explanation anyway), we're left hoping that observable matter or energy can contain it's own necessity.

 

Put more graphically, all human observation occurs within a sealed box, and we have no access to information on the cause of our box. Even if we get perfect clarity on the characteristics of the box, we can's explain it. That's what always makes me smile about atheists ranting on about the ridiculous nature of faith. I find a faith in the physical existance of anything (why does there need to be anything at all?) without a creator (of indeterminate characteristics, other than that it contains the seeds of its own existance) quite bizzare. In fact, if we limit ourselves strictly to these characteristics, something of that nature must exist, independent of any other characteristics you may want to tack on to it.

Sorry?

Scientists with no philosophical training, and big mouths designed to win funding grants, claim they will explain the universe, but by virtue of being in the universe, they do not have access to the information required to explain it.

Oh, why didn't you say that in the first place?

He's not wrong! Who's your money on?

Traf was quiet last night!

 

I'm not going to go in to a great deal of detail, because I can't see it being worth my time, and I'm fairly happy to have left this behind at University, but a lack of any beginning meets the necessary criteria of an ex nihilo explanation in the same way as a causal one, so your objection doesn't actually object to what I wrote. As for your second pearl of wisdom, I didn't mention God, and the argument I laid out absolutely does not reach a conclusion which provides any comfort for people afraid of death. To go on a cod psychology line however, I do always wonder why religion is accused of a fear of death which it posits the possibility of eternal damnation, versus a quiet and final end, and it is the modern secular world which has developed an absolute obsession with physical health and spends a massive proportion of it's wealth extending life out as much as possible.

 

 

F?ck me, I bet you're a laugh a minute to live with.

So if they all started at the same point, who twatted it with a hammer to get it all going?