John Cuthber

" if you can go back and read again what I stated," OK This is a statement of opinion, clearly identified as such. "In my opinion there is more reason or logic, ..." And this, on the other hand, is a bald assertion "It is more logical to believe that all the fundamental constants (Or Laws) came about..." That's the message I get when I read it. But that's hardly the point. You said this "There is a huge amount of evidence for God, although I admit that the evidence is circumstantial." I asked you for that evidence (and I'm still asking) I already knew your opinion, so restating it was pointless and patronising. You have yet to provide any evidence of the assertion you made. If you were to get chucked off the site, it wouldn't be for putting forward an opinion. It might be for soapboxing, because you refuse to enter into a discussion. You say there's evidence. I ask for it so we can discuss it, and your patronising reply is that you beleive it to be true. Well that's a whole bunch of bad logic (though, to be fair, you already said you were abandoning that.) It's also a tacit refusal to discuss the issue. While I'm at it, you make yet another strawman attack- this time on me personally. You say "Why for the life of me are you so obviously hostile to any suggestion that God might exist. " well, as I already pointed out - nobody said that .And, I remind you that I pointed out that it was a strawman before. You might choose to leave this site. You might possibly get barred, but if so, it won't be for expressing an opinion. It might be for refusing to discuss that opinion and back it up. It might be for trying to use a string of logical fallacies to put your belief across. Here's something for you to contemplate. If you need to use fallacies to explain your point of view, you ought to change your point of view. Still, that's just logic and you have decided to do without that, so here's a link to a crochet pattern for a baby dinosaur. http://myskillsguide.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/baby-dragon.html

Or move to a planet with a much denser atmosphere.

When did anyone say anything about race? If you gave a decent education to a hundred black kids from the ghetto, you would be practically as successful in getting PhDs as you would starting with 100 kids from anywhere else. (and it would be a damned good idea to start offering a decent education too)

"Now I treat my future marriage as a business contract," You have ruled out all those potential partners who don't see things that way. Arbitrarily ruling out a large part of the genome is not a sound strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean On the whole, the children of very bright parents are only slightly brighter than average children. Choosing a wife based on IQ is a poor choice of method. The best advice I can give refers to your assertion that " I have a harsh, unpleasant personality inherited from my paternal grandfather and I'm prone to anxiety and hypochondria, inherited from my paternal grandmother. I'm also extremely lazy and envious of others, especially people who are smarter and more hard-working than me." Do something about that.

Jaya Jagannath, My word! what a lot of tosh. You don't understand the nature of debate. It is acceptable to say "your ideas are wrong" but it is not acceptable to say "you are a fool" What is needed in debate is evidence and reasoning. You have provided neither. You have also not quite finished reading some things- for example, I'm described as a resident expert, but the expertise is explicitly labeled as being in Chemistry. It would be better if you understood more before you argued so incompetently. It's hardly going to matter because, unless you start doing a much better job of demonstrating the ability to think (as opposed to parroting arguments you have heard elsewhere) you are going to get banned.

Just to clarify, do you mean "Fools' paradise"? "a state of happiness based on a person's not knowing about or denying the existence of potential trouble. "they were living in a fool's paradise, refusing to accept that they were in debt""from https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Fools'+paradise%22&oq=%22Fools'+paradise%22&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=define+%22Fools'+paradise%22 Are you saying that if i learned more I would be less happy? That doesn't seem to make any sense. It certainly is not evidence for the existence of any God. Why can't your God help you to provide some evidence? Is he a figment of your imagination, or is the fault with you?

Stop posting tripe and post some evidence that this God of yours actually exists.

I really don't think that's his biggest problem.

" `1st of all you want to see Krishna The Supreme personality of Godhead or want to understand him direclty right ?" No, obviously, before any of that, I want some sort of evidence that he actually exists. That's what comes First- some evidence. And you have yet to supply any at all. " my `1st claim is this that you are all idiots." Read the rules.

Have a look through these and see which one(s) apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority In the meantime, perhaps, (in accordance with the site rules) you might like to provide the evidence you claimed earlier?

For some years now we seem to have tried to reduce poverty by taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people. It hasn't really worked. Has there ever been a concerted attempt to do it the other way round? If so, what happened.

This particular logical fallacy "The answer is that the laws of logic are part of the nature of God. " is called begging the question, as are alll your other points concerning His nature. " Even if it is a straw -man argument at least try and refute it, not dismiss it outright." You really have given up on logic, haven't you? Apart from the general wisdom of getting bogged down in stuff that'as not relevant, because nobody asked about it, I did, briefly comment on it. I said "Nobody said that He can't exist, just that there's no reason to believe that He does." But, if you accept that as a reply, you would need to be able to find evidence to counter it. Well, you said you have evidence for God. I asked you to tell us what it was. You ignored that request. I'm asking again; what evidence is there?

I could buy propyne from the DIY store http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAPP_gas And I don't think it's going to get me a Nobel prize.

"If you exist, then why is it impossible for God to exist?" Strawman. Nobody said that He can't exist, just that there's no reason to believe that He does. "There is a huge amount of evidence for God, although I admit that the evidence is circumstantial." No there isn't. There is stuff that you can attribute to some God, but there is no reason to do so. Perhaps you would like to cite some of the so-called evidence, rather than just asserting there's lots of it. " that sort of logic is useless" Once you discount logic, there's no real point to a discussion is there? Still, the willful decision to ignore logic might explain the strawman.

(With or without the help of interconnected electrons) Does God know what question He can't answer? No? OK so, He's still not omniscient. The same still goes for omnipotence too.

There are many criticisms of peer review and many problems in its implementation. There's only one real point in its favour: it works better than anything else that has been tried.

That statement seems overspecified. You have ignored Sensei's perfectly valid point that your (dubious) observation only works in base 10 and that is special pleading because we happen to have 10 fingers. Your video shows you choosing numbers basically because you choose them to fit the outcome you want. It's meaningless

Do you mean "This is really one of topics only dead humans can truly have knowledge about. Once we die for good then we will know. "

There comes a point when their motivation stops mattering to me. If someone acts like a troll because they don't know better and continues to do so after they have repeatedly been told not to, I'm going to lose patience with them quite quickly. The issue is whether my human frailty in not tolerating them is worse than theirs in being unable to stop acting like a troll. If it was just me and them there wouldn't be an easy answer to that, but if there are many of us, annoyed by apparent trollishness, even though the troll can't help it, but only one pseudo-troll, isn't it better to alleviate the discomfort of the majority by banning the unintentional troll?

This talk about fathers seems a bit strange. Modern DNA testing shows that quite a lot of people don't know who their father is. I believe that, in my case, it's the man who was married to my mother- but I accept that I can't strictly be sure of that. Again, there are plenty of people known to be adopted- their biological father has no real relevance to them. The man who earned the money that paid for the family upkeep, taught them how to play football, and stood up for them against the playground bully is, in a very important sense, their father- no matter whose DNA they carry. So, even if my dad isn't strictly my dad, he has earned my love and respect by his actions since I was born.. Now, lets look at this "Lord Krishna" you talk about. What evidence is there that he even exists? None as far as I can see. You haven't even tried to show any. More to the point, what has he done for me? Did he feed my family as we grew up? Did he teach me to play football? Did he do nothing? In plenty of cases, he stood idly by, while people were hurt and killed. What sort of "father" does that? Better to have an imperfect earthly father who actually helps than a "heavenly" father who does nothing to help millions of his children when they need it.

I watched part of the video. It makes no sense at all.

Just a thought: if the kid is doing the wrong thing, because of the influence of his parents, shouldn't he be separated from them to stop that influence making him worse? Even the "defence" indicates the need for a custodial sentence.

defense attorney Scott Brown said, “There is nothing the judge could have done to lessen the suffering for any of those families.” I'm not sure I believe that. In any case, the judge has made things worse for them. Here's what those people said "As for the victims families they were hoping for closure. “Today could have been a good start at that, unfortunately the wounds that it opened only makes the healing process that much greater and more difficult,” And, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/ethan-couch-sentenced_n_4426722.html "Psychologist G. Dick Miller testified for the defense that Couch suffered from "affluenza," a condition in which "his family felt that wealth bought privilege and there was no rational link between behavior and consequences," Well, it's high time they learned.

The fundamental change is due to cobalt ions picking up water and changing from blue to pink. The presence of other ions and salts affects the RH at which that change occurs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt(II)_chloride