Questions for Kermit ...

[bigboab]

snooker?

[Ava Estelle]

Just wait till we catch up on this new sport called football. We will show you what's what.

After the Football Association was formed, the rules were still undecided. Scotland played a skillful, passing game, the English played a rough, kicking each other game. When the first match was played between the two countries, the English players were impressed with the Scottish way of playing, and wanted it adopted into the rules. The Scottish, on the other hand, liked the English way better, and wanted those rules adopted. The result was a mix of the two, where you could trip the other player up, and barge players, including the goalkeeper, shoulder to shoulder.

[manker]

snooker?

I thought it was snooker too.

I think the Scotch are much better, on a world scale, at snooker than golf

[bigboab]

I thought it was snooker too.

I think the Scotch are much better, on a world scale, at snooker than golf

Snooker was 'invented' by British Officers stationed in India. It was derived from Billiards. As such I dont think there is such a thing as a Snooker table, it is a Billiard table. Then again..

[Chip Monk]

I thought it was snooker too.

I think the Scotch are much better, on a world scale, at snooker than golf

Indeed. Currently Scotland have the World's number 1 and 3.

[vidcc]

gratuitous youtube

[youtube]0DtP4ovja3s[/youtube]

I can't explain why I find this funny, but I do

[Busyman™]

gratuitous youtube

[youtube]0DtP4ovja3s[/youtube]

I can't explain why I find this funny, but I do

Ya damnnnn right! Shut yo mouth!

[MagicNakor]

I can't explain why I find this funny, but I do

Because it is.

[Snee]

Wrong, there is a fourth ... Neither 1 nor 2 can be proven, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve. This isn't the same as 3, which admits either 1 or 2 could be right, but that you haven't decided which one.



This is a contradiction of what you said in an earlier post ...




I find SnnY's posts quite confusing, an atheist says, I don't believe in God[s], SnnY says ..

.. I don't believe in God either ..

Where is this atheist 'doctrine' you disassociate yourself with?

It was very early in the morning, however, if you'd read all of what I said, instead of the bits you thought made for nice cutouts, you'da' understood what I said.

However, once more for the hard of reading:

I don't don't believe, or believe in God the way JP, Dave, or vid does.

I know that there is a possibility that God exists, but I also know that there is a possibility that one doesn't, this knowledge doesn't equal believing in, or not beliving in God the way a religious person, or an atheist does. I know neither can be proven, and therefore I'm open to the fact that either possibility may be true, or false.

Therefore I don't believe in God, but I also don't "don't believe in God" the way vid does, since what he's saying really is that he believes that God doesn't exist. My not believing doesn't mean the same thing as an atheists believing. (I explained this, tho', and stopped saying that "I don't believe", since that became confusing.)

He believes in something. I don't. In this case. (vid would say I believe in possibilities or sth, which I disagree on, as I say I know that neither possibility can be disproven at this point in time. This is because of there's plenty of empirical evidence that not all is known, and that since it isn't, we don't have the means to know everything, and so on.)

The only reason I didn't go over it and clarify, was because vid had already quoted me, and I'd already made an amendment to clarify the context in which that was posted in a later post.


And dave, no.

The odds for Martians existing here and now would most likely be far worse than the existence of a God somewhere, at some level of existence, somewhere.

As I've been saying, there's a lot to reality that isn't known, and therefore the odds for a God existing, or not existing, can't be determined at all, and until they can, no one can say however it's improbable or not, whereas the Martians we can say something about.

Parallel universes, m-space, eleven dimensions (not the same as parallel dimensions, btw), holographic universe, ever-changing laws of physics, near (from our POV) infinite time, and space, or possibly just infinite.

And at any point in time, or that space, a god, or godlike creature, could exist, or start existing.

As for the martians:

We (think we) know something of Mars, today, in this space, we know that there have been no known observations of martians, we know that skin is mostly just carbon, and that can be found anywhere, as can all of the elements constituting a human body, so there'd not be much of a point in collecting that for fuel, so they most likely wouldn't go here for that, 'cos it'd be insane, and so on.

EDit: And it's also fairly specific, and for each detail: Time, space, purpose, point of origin, etc, it becomes less probable.

You're agnostic.

Yep, I am.

And Billy: What JP said.

[Snee]

i understand the whole 10th dimension thing and infinity and shizzle. the point is that even if a godlike creature came to exist in another universe. if it came into our universe it would obey our physics. now an alien with great technology but poor common sense could exist. even if it came from another dimension's planet mars, it breaks no laws here

No mang, as far as I understand it, there's a possibility, given the nature of the universe, and so forth, that such an entity could stand outside our universe or current time (if the laws of physics vary with time), looking in. Thus its existence wouldn't be restricted to our current physical laws, although its actions would be, if it was to affect us directly, now.

---

Also, two more things for whomever it may concern:

*What people don't understand is often classified as magic, or something supernatural, looking back in history. And, as I know we don't know all there is to know yet, it's entirely possible for something that seems unreal now, to become fact later on.

*And two, until something is falsified, the possibility for it being true exists, although it may be somewhat determinable how good the odds for it being true are. And again, knowing that a possibillity exists does not equal "just" believing in it.

So Billy, I wasn't phrasing it to look superior, I was illustrating a dichotomy between knowing and merely believing.

It's strange that you don't see the distinction between the two.