Stop with the "who created God" argument it's bloody horrendous.

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    for the definition of 'god' to work, he cannot be created, he is eternal
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the original post, God absolutely must have created everything. He is the original creator.
    He created YOU in his own image! Screw the proven fact that we come from monkeys, this theory is more likely.
    God created this world in 6 days - no he did not **** up counting, we should ignore the fact that Earth was created via evolution.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RosesAreRed1)
    I agree with the original post, God absolutely must have created everything. He is the original creator.
    He created YOU in his own image! Screw the proven fact that we come from monkeys, this theory is more likely.
    God created this world in 6 days - no he did not **** up counting, we should ignore the fact that Earth was created via evolution.
    That is absolutely not what the theory of evolution says.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    That is absolutely not what the theory of evolution says.

    Have you even done a bit of research?
    Gettin a lid mad knowing your imaginary friend aint real are we
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RosesAreRed1)
    Gettin a lid mad knowing your imaginary friend aint real are we
    What?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I'm an atheist xD
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "
    even if this is a troll"
    yes it was, remind me to put a troll sign next time
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I said God is outside of time... So how is there an outside of him? okay

    I used Danth's law correctly. God is transcendent, he didn't come into existence with time or space, he was there before.
    There can be an outside of outside of time just like there can be an outside of time. And there can't be a before time as before is an application of time.

    And you didn't say Danth's law originally, you said godwin's law which I pointed out was wrong. Danth's law is correct. You see, you are learning.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I hope so, because you mentioning that I can't say the Big Bang happened seems to imply that. Whether the Big Bang is on-going on not doesn't mean its eternal because it's not the same Big Bang happening every second XD
    Something that goes on forever is eternal, and so reading the links provided to the articles postulate that the big bang could be going on forever, and thus is eternal.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    It didn't really help anything - I don't see how I learned anything as you just got disproven in that regard as you did before when you suggested the Big Bang was eternal.

    I don't see how using CapsLock to put emphasis on a few words equates to shouting but I guess you're used to redefining words so much - it's hard for you to change old habits.
    It did help. As detailed above you've again shown you can learn. It's taking us a couple of weeks so to get this far, imagine how much you'll learn when you're corrected over the next couple of weeks by other users and I.

    The reason you don't see it is because you lack critical thinking skills. But don't worry, we'll continue working on it.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I didn't confuse the word. I repeatedly said God is outside of time - his condition - God himself is outside of time. Yes, heaven exists out of time but I said God is eternal which means he is out of time.

    Critical thinking skills would've helped you here.
    You did confuse the word, like you've been confused throughout this thread. And the big bang exist outside the outside of time, in a place that god can't reach. And if god is outside of time then he can't be eternal as the word eternal is an application of time.

    Critical thinking skills would've helped you there.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The Big Bang couldn't happen without the beginning of the universe, the same way evolution couldn't happen without the beginning of life. In that way, it is dependent.
    You got that the wrong way round. The big bang caused the beginning of the universe. And continually trying to find tenuous links between evolution and the beginning of life has already proven to be pointless.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I do but you seem to be lacking in them, as shown above.
    I don't but you do lack them as shown by many users on this thread.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Already disproved as shown above.
    Nowhere close to being disproven.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Anyway, scarecrow can be made out of straw and so could be called a strawman scarecrow or straw scarecrow but whatever.
    No. Referring to a scarecrow as strawman doesn't make it so. You really love to redefine your words.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    No, linking evolution to abiogenesis is like linking them starting their relationship with them breaking up.
    No, linking evolution to abiogenesis is like me linking my watching fightclub in the cinema to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breaking up. If I hadn't helped the popularity of fight club by buying a ticket for the cinema, which helped contribute to the success of Brad Pitt's career, he wouldn't have starred in Mr and Mrs Smith with Angelia. They wouldn't have got married and thus end up separated.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I haven't learnt anything, in fact all your 'learnt' points are just getting disproven again and again.
    Don't hold yourself in such low regards (the rest of us will do that for you). You have in fact learnt things during this thread, albeit not much. But still, it's better than nothing. Eventually you'll learn that nothing i've said has been disproven.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Because I choose to take the lead from you in regards to being a pedant, how does that indicate I was easily led? Are you a bad person to copy pedantic behaviour from?
    I'm glad you think i'm worth taking a lead from. Now I know what it feels like to be jesus. You can be one of my disciples.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I didn't fail from the get go, you were wrong in the fact the Big Bang could be an eternal first cause. Admit it. The other atheist realised what you were arguing and changed his mind at the end. The Pope believes God caused the Big Bang so how in anyway would that mean it is the eternal first cause. You could call it a first cause if you want but no eternal. The Cyclic Model is saying the universe is eternal not the Big Bang.
    You failed before you even started...hmmm... kind of like something existing before time. Now where have I heard that before? The scientific community has disproven your claims and even the pope agrees with the scientific claim. There are plenty of hypotheses claiming that the big bang could be eternal as well as the cyclic model.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The Pope certainly isn't credible in terms of Christianity. Forced celibacy? Pseudo-baptism? Apostolic succession and priest sexual abuse cover-ups? gr8 b8
    And here again you've learnt something, but this time about how evil christianity is. It's a good thing you regard me a being the new jesus and I assure you, as one of my disciples I shall provide a non-evil religion.

    But until the rest of the christians comes to terms with that, the pope is the biggest authority and the de facto representative on christianity and he accepts the big bang.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    You already admitted the definition of where time has no application. Even if we were to agree with the definition that it means without beginning or end, how would that cause problems for God when he's also transcendent?
    How can god be transcendent when the universe, existing outside the outside of time, is more transcendent?

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    God is outside of time (that condition of where time has no application). God himself. So saying outside of outside of time? What is outside of outside of time. How can something have time not applied to it in a place where there is no time applied? You don't need faith to understand that, it's something called 'critical thinking skills'
    Outside of the outside of time is a place where the big bang exists. The big bang itself, beyond god. Soething can easily have time not applied to it in a place where there's no time applied.

    And there you go again, using words you don't understand. You say 'critical thinking skills' but you don't understand them. Critical thinking skills would've helped you understand the term 'critical thinking skills'. I, as your new jesus will seek to enlighten you.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The researchers said the universe was eternal not the Big Bang, just stop. There were simply saying there were multiple Big Bangs.
    That was for the cyclic model, but further researchers postulated an eternal big bang.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Your first post on this thread was 'why can't the Big Bang be the eternal first cause?'
    Exactly. A question, not a claim. Which i've already proven to be right.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    There is nothing evil about Christianity, I've already told you if you want a sufficient rebuttal then you will get one if you start another thread because that is not what this thread is about. You haven't used evidence yet so why expect me to first when you're making the claims? #triggered
    There is everything evil with christianity. I don't particularly want to talk about christianity but if you don't want me to prove how evil it is then you shouldn't have originally brought up how it's not evil. I as your new jesus have spoken. #triggering triggers
    I haven't provided evidence because that evidence exists outside of time. You understand that, right. You just have to have faith that the evidence is there.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Oh and saying, that because people said God told them to kill their children (even though he condemns child sacrifice as an abominable act in the Bible) doesn't mean God told them to do anything, I love how you think that's evidence that Christianity is evil. (lack of critical thinking skills)
    Oh, so if someone makes a claim about god then we shouldn't believe them? See you've learning. The bible promotes child abuse (taking unruly kids to the edge of town and stone them). I love the fact that you don't see that as being evil. Critical thinking, try it sometime (I, as your new jesus, insist on it ).

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    ?? Um... okay, seeing as you've been condescending from the near star and you're only claiming I got 'angry' in the last few posts then why didn't it stop me from getting angry in the first polace? .
    At last, you finally admit to getting angry. It was when you got angry that I became condescending and you calmed down (like jesus, I have a calming effect on people).

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    God is an uncaused cause but what is an 'unbeginning beginning'? I think you mean unbegun beginning but that doesn't make sense in the way that uncaused cause does. A cause can be uncaused. But how can a beginning not be begun?An uncaused effect wouldn't make sense but an uncaused cause is perfectly fine.
    Nope, I meant unbeginning beginning. The thing you don't think makes sense is the uncaused cause. A beginning can start from the unbeginning like a cause can be uncaused, thus a beginning can begin without beginning (the unbeginning beginning). An unbeginning beginning is prefectly acceptable.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Also, proved before, you've been condescending since the near star so that makes no sense. Using CapsLock on a few words about the definition of assumption doesn't mean I'm angry. When I typed in those words, I was like 'He's just going to say I'm angry or something' but I was like 'Nah, he's mature enough to know capslock on about 6 words on a around 500 word post doesn't mean I'm angry' - you proved me wrong lol.
    I've barely been condescending so it makes perfect sense. You used capslock because you were angry, as you admitted above. When you typed those words, you were like, "Oh my god. Imma so mad. Imma shout so bad, so he knows how angry I am. There's no point in emphasizing words that don't need emphasizing. Imma so mad".

    But it's big of you to admit you were wrong. To be humble in front of your new jesus is very noble.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    They can be used interchangeably in a non-scientific environment. In the lab, many would call a hypothesis a prediction but it is fine to use them interchangeably out of one as each word has multiple definitions and if we are not in a scientific or academic environment, you can't assume which one is being used.
    No, they can't be used interchangably. They're only used interchangably by people who don't understand the terms. That doesn't give any kind of legitimacy to using one word for the other. regardless of the environment, those two words have specific meanings and so should be used as such.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I think I did that after I witnessed you being a pedant as I said but anyway.
    Not that that matters now that you regard me as being the new jesus. jesus' disciples tried to follow his example, as well.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    You simply said the Bible without quoting anything - that doesn't count as evidence but thanks for referring to the Bible for evidence but it is regarded as evidence for accounts of Jesus' life due to the accounts being written within 100 years of his life.
    No, the bible is a poor example for the existence of jesus (if he did exist at all). However it's a perfect example of something which contains evil passages by which people live. And I already mentioned that I provided the evidence of the evil passages outside of the outside of time, whilst I was on route to the outside of the outside of the outside of time.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Christianity isn't evil but I can tell you're too triggered right now to be disproven in another thread so you can leave it at that.
    Christianity is absolutely evil. It is a scourge on this planet (which exists within time, by the way) and it's slowly on its way out. Luckily, I, as your new jesus, shall bring forth a new religion...when I finish my holiday in the outside of outside of time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RosesAreRed1)
    Gettin a lid mad knowing your imaginary friend aint real are we
    Are you trolling? You're the one who said you believe in God. And there is no evidence for him creating anything.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Are you trolling? You're the one who said you believe in God. And there is no evidence for him creating anything.
    "even if this is a troll"
    yes it was, remind me to put a troll sign next time
    ^^
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Bible verses don't prove God exists.
    You obviously didn't watch the full video.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XOR_)
    I want to point out, the vastness and (subjective) beauty of the universe is not evidence for a god, it's possibly the reason you believe in one but certainly not evidence for one.
    And simply ignore the rest of the video? Okay sure. It is still evidence, whether you accept it or not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    There can be an outside of outside of time just like there can be an outside of time. And there can't be a before time as before is an application of time.

    And you didn't say Danth's law originally, you said godwin's law which I pointed out was wrong. Danth's law is correct. You see, you are learning.
    Again, in the same way eternity can describe a state in which time is not applicable - how does that mean it there can't be a place where time is applicable just because there is a definition.

    If you are saying there is no before time, then I can say God is eternal and transcendent.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Something that goes on forever is eternal, and so reading the links provided to the articles postulate that the big bang could be going on forever, and thus is eternal.
    Not really. It says that there have been multiple Big Bangs again and again but it never says the Big Bang was the first event that happened. Even then, these are all individually separate Big Bangs so how is 'the' Big Bang happening forever?

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    It did help. As detailed above you've again shown you can learn. It's taking us a couple of weeks so to get this far, imagine how much you'll learn when you're corrected over the next couple of weeks by other users and I.

    The reason you don't see it is because you lack critical thinking skills. But don't worry, we'll continue working on it.
    It hasn't but you can keep believing that.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You did confuse the word, like you've been confused throughout this thread. And the big bang exist outside the outside of time, in a place that god can't reach. And if god is outside of time then he can't be eternal as the word eternal is an application of time.

    Critical thinking skills would've helped you there.
    Lemme post a definition of eternity:
    a state to which time has no application; timelessness.

    Critical thinking skills would've helped you there.

    The word eternal isn't an application of time.
    the action of putting something into operation.

    How does the word eternal or eternity put time into operation? There are multiple definitions for the word.

    Again, critical thinking skills would have helped you there.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You got that the wrong way round. The big bang caused the beginning of the universe. And continually trying to find tenuous links between evolution and the beginning of life has already proven to be pointless.

    I don't but you do lack them as shown by many users on this thread.
    The Big Bang isn't about cosmic origins? Critical thinking skills would have helped you a lot here.

    Lol, please name these 'many' users or are you just redefining that word too?

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Nowhere close to being disproven.

    No. Referring to a scarecrow as strawman doesn't make it so. You really love to redefine your words.
    You were disproven and you were disproven in the quote you quoted for this bit too. You just tried to cut out the quote because of embarrassment.

    Here:

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You absolutely redefined a word for your purpose. I could say 'fairlough' instead of strawman and try to pretend it's an acceptable alternative as that word is similar to scarecrow in that they're homonyms. The point is fairlough is not an alternative word for scarecrow and neither is strawman.
    Fairlough isn't homonym, you mean homophone and it's not a homophone either. You're really great at redefining words, aren't you? I mean, you've just done it twice in one sentence. Anyway, scarecrow can be made out of straw and so could be called a strawman scarecrow or straw scarecrow but whatever.
    I guess you must be learning.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    No, linking evolution to abiogenesis is like me linking my watching fightclub in the cinema to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breaking up. If I hadn't helped the popularity of fight club by buying a ticket for the cinema, which helped contribute to the success of Brad Pitt's career, he wouldn't have starred in Mr and Mrs Smith with Angelia. They wouldn't have got married and thus end up separated.
    No, linking evolution to abiogenesis is like linking them starting their relationship with them breaking up.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Don't hold yourself in such low regards (the rest of us will do that for you). You have in fact learnt things during this thread, albeit not much. But still, it's better than nothing. Eventually you'll learn that nothing i've said has been disproven.
    You have been disproven several times now. Including you homophone/homonym failure.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    I'm glad you think i'm worth taking a lead from. Now I know what it feels like to be jesus. You can be one of my disciples.
    I'm taking the lead from one aspect of your behaviour in internet arguments. Jesus' disciples tried to mirror his good behaviour and approaches to others. Oh no, a tenuous link! We've found a hypocrite: !!mentor!! - looks like he needs some mentoring himself.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    You failed before you even started...hmmm... kind of like something existing before time. Now where have I heard that before? The scientific community has disproven your claims and even the pope agrees with the scientific claim. There are plenty of hypotheses claiming that the big bang could be eternal as well as the cyclic model.
    The Cyclic Model says the universe is eternal not the Big Bang, stop trying to twist hypotheses to your advantage via lies. The Pope doesn't believe the Big Bang is eternal.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    And here again you've learnt something, but this time about how evil christianity is. It's a good thing you regard me a being the new jesus and I assure you, as one of my disciples I shall provide a non-evil religion.

    But until the rest of the christians comes to terms with that, the pope is the biggest authority and the de facto representative on christianity and he accepts the big bang.
    That's Catholicism not real Christianity and before I noted those things I said they weren't credible Christianity but sure if you want to lie, go ahead and lie. You will answer to God one day. The worst part is you don't think you will and when the time comes even the regret will be enough to cripple you.

    The Pope isn't the representative on Christianity. He is the representative for Catholicism - that is literally one of his jobs so don't try and redefine it like the many words you have redefined.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    How can god be transcendent when the universe, existing outside the outside of time, is more transcendent?
    This is a recurring theme - when you have nothing to say to a particular point you simply resort to moronic behaviour. If that's what makes you happy, I feel sorry for you.

    One of God's qualities is that he is transcendent which in case you forgot means he is not subject to the limits of the material universe.

    The universe doesn't exist outside the outside of time? That sentence just invalidates the universe. There is no outside of the outside of time. Time doesn't apply to God, simple.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Outside of the outside of time is a place where the big bang exists. The big bang itself, beyond god. Soething can easily have time not applied to it in a place where there's no time applied.

    And there you go again, using words you don't understand. You say 'critical thinking skills' but you don't understand them. Critical thinking skills would've helped you understand the term 'critical thinking skills'. I, as your new jesus will seek to enlighten you.
    The Big Bang is supposed to have happened after the start of the universe so how can it exist outside of the outside of time? You're just saying stuff that invalidates the Big Bang because you have no points to make.

    Using words I don't understand - it's pretty obvious only you've been doing that - make sure to check the dictionary for the words homophone and homonym btw.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    That was for the cyclic model, but further researchers postulated an eternal big bang.
    So now you're changing your claim. Post these postulations then.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Exactly. A question, not a claim. Which i've already proven to be right.
    You can't prove a question to be right so it's obvious it was a claim or became a claim later on. You have nowhere proven the Big Bang is the eternal first cause.

    1) The Big Bang isn't about cosmic origins but rather the formation of the universe so whether the Big Bang is eternal or not it is not meant to be the first cause and even then the first cause has to be uncaused and yet the Big Bang is said to have been caused.

    2) Despite the first point ruling it out as the eternal first cause. The Big Bang is not eternal. If the Big Bang is eternal and an event at the same time - which is impossible then how can it also be a cause?

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    There is everything evil with christianity. I don't particularly want to talk about christianity but if you don't want me to prove how evil it is then you shouldn't have originally brought up how it's not evil. I as your new jesus have spoken. #triggering triggers
    I haven't provided evidence because that evidence exists outside of time. You understand that, right. You just have to have faith that the evidence is there.
    Christianity is not evil. So there is an outside of time? Great.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Oh, so if someone makes a claim about god then we shouldn't believe them? See you've learning. The bible promotes child abuse (taking unruly kids to the edge of town and stone them). I love the fact that you don't see that as being evil. Critical thinking, try it sometime (I, as your new jesus, insist on it ).
    The Bible doesn't promote that. It tells us of the Law given to the God's covenant people in Israel back then. It is not in force today.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    At last, you finally admit to getting angry. It was when you got angry that I became condescending and you calmed down (like jesus, I have a calming effect on people).
    Actually, I used quotes on the term anger. I didn't admit to anything and you've were condescending from your first posts but claim I got 'angry' a few posts after so that makes no sense. You also said you 'triggered' me but now you're saying you calmed me down. You're again making no sense.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Nope, I meant unbeginning beginning. The thing you don't think makes sense is the uncaused cause. A beginning can start from the unbeginning like a cause can be uncaused, thus a beginning can begin without beginning (the unbeginning beginning). An unbeginning beginning is prefectly acceptable.
    No it doesn't so don't pretend is does. Again, you're resorting to moronic behaviour to respond to points you don't have a real answer too. An unbeginning beginning is a beginning that isn't beginning. So there is no beginning. An uncaused cause is a cause that was never caused but causes other things.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    I've barely been condescending so it makes perfect sense. You used capslock because you were angry, as you admitted above. When you typed those words, you were like, "Oh my god. Imma so mad. Imma shout so bad, so he knows how angry I am. There's no point in emphasizing words that don't need emphasizing. Imma so mad".

    But it's big of you to admit you were wrong. To be humble in front of your new jesus is very noble.
    I didn't admit anything. I used quotes. Again, moronic behaviour and use of pointless condescension only brings you down.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    No, they can't be used interchangably. They're only used interchangably by people who don't understand the terms. That doesn't give any kind of legitimacy to using one word for the other. regardless of the environment, those two words have specific meanings and so should be used as such.
    They can be used interchangeably in a non-scientific environment. In the lab, many would call a hypothesis a prediction but it is fine to use them interchangeably out of one as each word has multiple definitions and if we are not in a scientific or academic environment, you can't assume which one is being used.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Not that that matters now that you regard me as being the new jesus. jesus' disciples tried to follow his example, as well.
    I don't but okay.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    No, the bible is a poor example for the existence of jesus (if he did exist at all). However it's a perfect example of something which contains evil passages by which people live. And I already mentioned that I provided the evidence of the evil passages outside of the outside of time, whilst I was on route to the outside of the outside of the outside of time.
    The Bible is a perfect example of the existence of Jesus which has been proven and accepted by many credible historians. To even add '(if he did exist at all)' only lowers your own credibility. So you do believe in an outside of time and an outside of the outside of time. Good for you.

    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Christianity is absolutely evil. It is a scourge on this planet (which exists within time, by the way) and it's slowly on its way out. Luckily, I, as your new jesus, shall bring forth a new religion...when I finish my holiday in the outside of outside of time.
    You are not my new Jesus but the fact you postulate that is funny because it shows your increasing stupidity.

    There is nothing evil about Christianity. You do believe in the outside of the outside of time? Good for you. But time doesn't apply to God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Again, in the same way eternity can describe a state in which time is not applicable - how does that mean it there can't be a place where time is applicable just because there is a definition.
    Again, it can't be a place where time is applicable because eternity is an application of time. Without time there can't be an eternity. Critical thinking skills would've helped you there.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    If you are saying there is no before time, then I can say God is eternal and transcendent.
    No, you can absolutely say that but you'll still be wrong. You should try critical thinking.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Not really. It says that there have been multiple Big Bangs again and again but it never says the Big Bang was the first event that happened. Even then, these are all individually separate Big Bangs so how is 'the' Big Bang happening forever?
    Yes really. The other set of links I refer to are in reference to the eternal big bang hypothesis. You should read something beyond the bible.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    It hasn't but you can keep believing that.
    It has. So i'll still continue knowing that.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Lemme post a definition of eternity:
    a state to which time has no application; timelessness.

    Critical thinking skills would've helped you there.
    Let me post the true definition of eternity. Infinite or unending time.
    Critical thinking skills would've helped you critically think about critical thinking.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The word eternal isn't an application of time.
    the action of putting something into operation.

    How does the word eternal or eternity put time into operation? There are multiple definitions for the word.

    Again, critical thinking skills would have helped you there.
    The word eternal is an application of time. Without time there would be no eternal.

    It doesn't put anything into operation, as it is defined as unending / infinite time. You redefining the words eternal / eternity doesn't mean that those definitions are so.

    Again critically thinking about critical thinking skills would've helped you there.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The Big Bang isn't about cosmic origins? Critical thinking skills would have helped you a lot here.
    The big bang is the best explanation of the beginning of the universe. Critically thinking about critical thinking skills would've helped you there.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Lol, please name these 'many' users or are you just redefining that word too?
    LOL. I've no need to redefine the word. Pick one of the many users on this thread. LOL.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    You were disproven and you were disproven in the quote you quoted for this bit too. You just tried to cut out the quote because of embarrassment.

    Here:

    I guess you must be learning.
    Nope, that was the applicable word. But notice how you try to deflect from the fact that you had to edit one of your posts after I pointed out you were wrong. See below for your original post:

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    You've lost due to Godwins's law - but ANYWAY. If Big Bangs happened before the Big Bang which that thing was trying to say - it is literally just saying there was time before the Big Bang.
    If i'd mistaken Danth's Law for Godwin's Law, i'd probably be so embarrassed that i'd scurry to try try and change it before anyone else noticed it.

    See, I helped you learn.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    No, linking evolution to abiogenesis is like linking them starting their relationship with them breaking up.
    No, linking evolution to abiogenesis is like me linking my watching fightclub in the cinema to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breaking up. If I hadn't helped the popularity of fight club by buying a ticket for the cinema, which helped contribute to the success of Brad Pitt's career, he wouldn't have starred in Mr and Mrs Smith with Angelia. They wouldn't have got married and thus end up separated.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    You have been disproven several times now. Including you homophone/homonym failure.
    I haven't been disproven at all. You are the one who hurriedly tried to change your post when I pointed your Godwin's / Danth's law failure.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I'm taking the lead from one aspect of your behaviour in internet arguments. Jesus' disciples tried to mirror his good behaviour and approaches to others. Oh no, a tenuous link! We've found a hypocrite: !!mentor!! - looks like he needs some mentoring himself.
    So you're taking your lead from my good behaviour and my approach to others just like the disciples mirrored jesus' behaviour.
    Oh no, you've turned on me already, just like Judas did. This is how jesus must have felt.
    Guys, i've found the hypocrite in 'StudyJosh' - looks like he needs to study some more.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The Cyclic Model says the universe is eternal not the Big Bang, stop trying to twist hypotheses to your advantage via lies. The Pope doesn't believe the Big Bang is eternal.
    The cyclic model doesn't say that the universe is eternal. And stop mixing up the links i've provided in order to claim lies. The pope believes the big bang was the beginning of the universe.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    That's Catholicism not real Christianity and before I noted those things I said they weren't credible Christianity but sure if you want to lie, go ahead and lie. You will answer to God one day. The worst part is you don't think you will and when the time comes even the regret will be enough to cripple you.
    That is real christianity. The pope is a representative of the evil that is christianity. They're not credible to you because they are an inconvenient truth to the fact that christianity is abhorrent. I don't have to lie, the evil of christianity is well documented in the media and the bible.

    If there is a god then he will answer to me. I as the new jesus have decreed it. The worst part is you don't even see how your beliefs have crippled you.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    This is a recurring theme - when you have nothing to say to a particular point you simply resort to moronic behaviour. If that's what makes you happy, I feel sorry for you.
    I have nothing to say but facts and the truth. There's nothing moronic about that. The truth always makes me happy. So if you want to feel happy and glad instead, then realise the truth of the big bang.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    One of God's qualities is that he is transcendent which in case you forgot means he is not subject to the limits of the material universe.
    What a coincidence. The big bang isn't subject to the limits of the material universe. I guess that means that the big bang is transcendent also. You're having to make up description of this god thing to construct a point as you have no point.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The Big Bang is supposed to have happened after the start of the universe so how can it exist outside of the outside of time? You're just saying stuff that invalidates the Big Bang because you have no points to make.
    Nope, the big bang is how the universe began so it is capable of existing outside the universe. Cosmology and the scientific method falls on the side of the big bang.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The universe doesn't exist outside the outside of time? That sentence just invalidates the universe. There is no outside of the outside of time. Time doesn't apply to God, simple.
    The big bang exists outside the outside the time whilst the universe exists with time. As there is no outside of time so god can't exist there. Simples.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    You can't prove a question to be right so it's obvious it was a claim or became a claim later on. You have nowhere proven the Big Bang is the eternal first cause.

    1) The Big Bang isn't about cosmic origins but rather the formation of the universe so whether the Big Bang is eternal or not it is not meant to be the first cause and even then the first cause has to be uncaused and yet the Big Bang is said to have been caused.

    2) Despite the first point ruling it out as the eternal first cause. The Big Bang is not eternal. If the Big Bang is eternal and an event at the same time - which is impossible then how can it also be a cause?
    The question I asked wasn't meant to be right or wrong. The subsequent statements that resulted from that question can absolutely be right. I have proven all over this thread that my points are correct whereas yours are wrong.

    1) The big bang is the best model for the beginning of the universe and so is the first cause for the universe. The postulation of its eternal state is one hypothesis. The current big bang model states that it is the uncaused cause.

    2) The first point wasn't a point, more vague suppositions. The big bang can easily be an event and eternal. There's nothing impossible about it. It can be a cause as it's uncaused.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Christianity is not evil. So there is an outside of time? Great.
    Christianity is wholly evil full of abhorrent acts. Which is why it has to convince its followers that it's the truth.
    And if there is an outside of time then there is an outside the outside of time. Awesome.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The Bible doesn't promote that. It tells us of the Law given to the God's covenant people in Israel back then. It is not in force today.
    The bible absolutely promotes that and it's still relevant today,. It hasn't been superceded. My predecessor, jesus, said that not until heaven and earth disappear will the previous law change.

    But perhaps jesus is lying as well? That's why the big bang sent me as the true saviour and your leader. I don't lie.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Using words I don't understand - it's pretty obvious only you've been doing that - make sure to check the dictionary for the words homophone and homonym btw.
    Yes, using words you don't understand. I'm not sure whether I should trust this claim here, as you have a history of lying and later changing your posts: Godwin's / Danth's law btw.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    So now you're changing your claim. Post these postulations then.
    My claim has remained the same. The links have been put up long ago. If you choose not to read them then that's up to you.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    Actually, I used quotes on the term anger. I didn't admit to anything and you've were condescending from your first posts but claim I got 'angry' a few posts after so that makes no sense. You also said you 'triggered' me but now you're saying you calmed me down. You're again making no sense.
    You absolutely admitted you were wrong. I pointed this out to you so you've probably gone back to change your posts. I was nothing but polite and courteous from the outset. Not until you got angry did I condescend you to calm you down. And you've not been angry since. It makes perfect sense. You got triggered and became angry. I condescended you and you calmed down. Simples.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    No it doesn't so don't pretend is does. Again, you're resorting to moronic behaviour to respond to points you don't have a real answer too. An unbeginning beginning is a beginning that isn't beginning. So there is no beginning. An uncaused cause is a cause that was never caused but causes other things.
    It so does. No pretending is required and there's nothing moronic about it. I've provided all the answers and you saying, "No, god did it, innit" doesn't make sense.
    An unbeginning beginning makes as much sense as an uncaused cause, and makes as much sense as outside of time.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I didn't admit anything. I used quotes. Again, moronic behaviour and use of pointless condescension only brings you down.
    You did admit that. You can use quotes, medieval armour or whatever. You admitted that and I didn't have to condescend you for that admission.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    They can be used interchangeably in a non-scientific environment. In the lab, many would call a hypothesis a prediction but it is fine to use them interchangeably out of one as each word has multiple definitions and if we are not in a scientific or academic environment, you can't assume which one is being used.
    They're only used interchangeably by people who don't understand the terms, and those people tend to be non-scientific. Hypothesis and prediction have two different meanings and they are used interchangeably by people who don't understand the terms.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    I don't but okay.
    You do, so okay.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    The Bible is a perfect example of the existence of Jesus which has been proven and accepted by many credible historians. To even add '(if he did exist at all)' only lowers your own credibility. So you do believe in an outside of time and an outside of the outside of time. Good for you.
    The bible is no more proof of jesus' existence than the Spiderman comic series is to the existence of Dr Ock.
    Outside the bible, jesus isn't mentioned any where else. The Romans kept good records and he is not mentioned in any of their records. He is only mentioned outside the bible by people who were born after him and have recounted stories about stories, in the same way that stories about Frankenstein continue to persist after the original telling. It doesn't mean that Frankenstein existed.
    He seems to be a character made up of other mythical figures such as Osiris, Mithras, who had the same origins, the same death as the mythological Jesus Christ.

    To not even be aware of this does not discredit you in any way as you had no credit to begin with.

    So if you accept the mention of jesus in the bible then you accept all the evil if promotes. Good for you.

    (Original post by StudyJosh)
    You are not my new Jesus but the fact you postulate that is funny because it shows your increasing stupidity.

    There is nothing evil about Christianity. You do believe in the outside of the outside of time? Good for you. But time doesn't apply to God.
    I didn't choose to be your new jesus, you chose me. I don't think it's funny myself. This is how jesus must've felt when some people didn't take him seriously either. I wonder if people back then called jesus stupid? But as your new jesus, I forgive you.

    Christianity is pure evil. I believe in the outside of the outside of time but not the outside of time because that doesn't make sense. Time doesn't apply to god because time can't apply to something that doesn't exist. Ya no am sain?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ua3142)
    for the definition of 'god' to work, he cannot be created, he is eternal
    In Greek, Roman and Norse mythology many of the gods were created.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrainJuice)
    The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator as if this was the case everything you see would be created.

    We know there must be an Eternal First Cause, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that nothing at all would come to existence. Again I've explained above why the human mind might not think this could be possible.
    This is all mental masturbation dude, the Greeks did it for ages. You're arguing concepts. Science>armchair philosophising.

    ...The invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist because you can't be invisible AND pink in the same time as being pink means you have a particular wavelength rendering you visible.

    ...Ah but that unicorn is so small as not to be seen by the human eye- but we have MICROSCOPES and as long as the unicorn has a colour no matter how pink it is, it'll be at least as large as the wavelength of "pink light"!

    ...But we haven't come across any pink unicorns that have been spotted under a microscrope!

    ...Because they're invisible, stupid!!!

    The end.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MasterJack)
    This is all mental masturbation dude, the Greeks did it for ages. You're arguing concepts. Science>armchair philosophising.
    Science rests on a number of philosophical and mathematical presuppositions that it couldnt possibly substantiate without arguing in a circle. The results of science raise questions about substance vs events, causation and whether there are universals in scientific laws etc. Which science can shed some light on but never fully answer.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Again, science>armchair philosophising.

    Science relies heavily on ideas AND experimentation. No ideas means nothing to test. No experimentation means ideas don't get verified. You're stuck at the first phase- all ideas no evidence or experiments. If you haven't put your ideas to a test, they're just ideas and nothing more- you're stuck in IPUD (Invisible Pink Unicorn) mode, essentially mental masturbation. You're arguing concepts and those concepts are meaningless if they're not substantiated in reality- science is a vital tool when it comes to linking reality with ideas. No one knows what happened at the "beginning" and anyone claiming they know the answer despite there being no evidence is either intellectually dishonest or is fooling themselves.

    This is the domain of the scientists (most particularly in this case, physicists), not theologians. If you want to see where relying on theology gets you when it comes to epistemology you need only look at the dark ages.

    The smarter types have approached this subject with the "bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" mind-set, Lemaître did well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MasterJack)
    Again, science>armchair philosophising.

    Science relies heavily on ideas AND experimentation. No ideas means nothing to test. No experimentation means ideas don't get verified. You're stuck at the first phase- all ideas no evidence or experiments. If you haven't put your ideas to a test, they're just ideas and nothing more- you're stuck in IPUD (Invisible Pink Unicorn) mode, essentially mental masturbation. You're arguing concepts and those concepts are meaningless if they're not substantiated in reality- science is a vital tool when it comes to linking reality with ideas. No one knows what happened at the "beginning" and anyone claiming they know the answer despite there being no evidence is either intellectually dishonest or is fooling themselves.

    This is the domain of the scientists (most particularly in this case, physicists), not theologians. If you want to see where relying on theology gets you when it comes to epistemology you need only look at the dark ages.

    The smarter types have approached this subject with the "bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" mind-set, Lemaître did well.
    This isnt an argument. Its just a wall of assertion, at least im struggling to discern where the argument is.

    The only part where you seemed to argue the case was 'concepts are meaningless when they aren't substantiated in reality - science is a vital tool when it comes to linking reality to ideas'.

    The downside is, this is simply a terrible argument (its hard to tell because you're not cleae). If you are saying science is the only (reliable) way to knowledge, its simply false because its self refuting.

    The claim that methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything is not a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific methods. Indeed, that science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only one) is not one that can be established scientifically. For scientific inquiry rests on a number of philosophical assumptions; the assumption that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists, the assumption that the world is governed by regularities of the sort that might be captured in scientific laws, the assumption that the human intellect and perceptual apparatus can uncover and accurately describe these regularities, assuming the truths demonstrated by maths, assuming the laws of logic and the truths from contemporary formal logic etc. Etc. The scientific method presupposes these things. It cannot justify them without arguing in a circle (ironically, which would forego the formal logic it presupposes!) In the end, to support these suppositions, you need an extra- scientific vantage point. You need philosophy, mainly. (Nor is it only the assumptions of science that philosophy shed light on, but how to interpret the findings of science. Causality, the relationship between laws of nature and universals, whether the world is fundamentally comprised of substance or events).

    So moaning about philosophy not having the justification through verification just wont do, precisely because the presuppositions that science relies on to work and the tools it needs to fully interpret its findings can neither be verified either. You are stuck with having to make and defend philosophical claims through rational argumentation.

    Nor is any of this new or a minority view. The great scientists of the early twentieth century knew this, as Erwin Schrodinger wrote (just talking about the specific boundaries science has with the mind-body problem); "We are thus facing the following strange situation. While all building stones for the [modern scientific] world-picture are furnished by the senses qua organs of the mind, while the world picture itself is and remains for everyone a construct of his mind and apart from it has no demonstrable existence, the mind itself remains a stranger in this picture, it has no place in it, it can nowhere be found in it".

    Nor will it do to ignore Schrodinger simply because he was a theist. Bertrand Russel was no friend of God and pointed out how physics, which stipulates as a matter of methodology rather than has discovered, that the world be described in purely quantitative means (hence the ability for extremely successful prediction and technological success), cannot in principle tell us everything about the physical world, but also that there must be more to it than is described by physics; " it is not always realised how exceedingly abstract is the information that theoretical physics has to give. It lays down certain fundamental equations which enable it to deal with the logical structure of events, while leaving it completely unknown what is the intrinsic character of events that have the structure . . . All that physics gives us is certain equations giving abstract properties of their changes. But as to what it is that changes, and what it changes from and to - as to to this physics is silent".

    Science cannot be an exhaustive description of reality (and i wont even touch how far it can explain as opposed to describe). But that it needs philosophy is clear. Philosophy always buries its undertakers.

    Also, quite point. You jump from theology to philosophy too flimsy. This is why the quote from the catholic priest was regarding theology and not philosophy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by !!mentor!!)
    Again, it can't be a place where time is applicable because eternity is an application of time. Without time there can't be an eternity. Critical thinking skills would've helped you there.



    No, you can absolutely say that but you'll still be wrong. You should try critical thinking.



    Yes really. The other set of links I refer to are in reference to the eternal big bang hypothesis. You should read something beyond the bible.



    It has. So i'll still continue knowing that.



    Let me post the true definition of eternity. Infinite or unending time.
    Critical thinking skills would've helped you critically think about critical thinking.



    The word eternal is an application of time. Without time there would be no eternal.

    It doesn't put anything into operation, as it is defined as unending / infinite time. You redefining the words eternal / eternity doesn't mean that those definitions are so.

    Again critically thinking about critical thinking skills would've helped you there.



    The big bang is the best explanation of the beginning of the universe. Critically thinking about critical thinking skills would've helped you there.



    LOL. I've no need to redefine the word. Pick one of the many users on this thread. LOL.



    Nope, that was the applicable word. But notice how you try to deflect from the fact that you had to edit one of your posts after I pointed out you were wrong. See below for your original post:



    If i'd mistaken Danth's Law for Godwin's Law, i'd probably be so embarrassed that i'd scurry to try try and change it before anyone else noticed it.

    See, I helped you learn.



    No, linking evolution to abiogenesis is like me linking my watching fightclub in the cinema to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie breaking up. If I hadn't helped the popularity of fight club by buying a ticket for the cinema, which helped contribute to the success of Brad Pitt's career, he wouldn't have starred in Mr and Mrs Smith with Angelia. They wouldn't have got married and thus end up separated.



    I haven't been disproven at all. You are the one who hurriedly tried to change your post when I pointed your Godwin's / Danth's law failure.



    So you're taking your lead from my good behaviour and my approach to others just like the disciples mirrored jesus' behaviour.
    Oh no, you've turned on me already, just like Judas did. This is how jesus must have felt.
    Guys, i've found the hypocrite in 'StudyJosh' - looks like he needs to study some more.



    The cyclic model doesn't say that the universe is eternal. And stop mixing up the links i've provided in order to claim lies. The pope believes the big bang was the beginning of the universe.



    That is real christianity. The pope is a representative of the evil that is christianity. They're not credible to you because they are an inconvenient truth to the fact that christianity is abhorrent. I don't have to lie, the evil of christianity is well documented in the media and the bible.

    If there is a god then he will answer to me. I as the new jesus have decreed it. The worst part is you don't even see how your beliefs have crippled you.



    I have nothing to say but facts and the truth. There's nothing moronic about that. The truth always makes me happy. So if you want to feel happy and glad instead, then realise the truth of the big bang.



    What a coincidence. The big bang isn't subject to the limits of the material universe. I guess that means that the big bang is transcendent also. You're having to make up description of this god thing to construct a point as you have no point.



    Nope, the big bang is how the universe began so it is capable of existing outside the universe. Cosmology and the scientific method falls on the side of the big bang.



    The big bang exists outside the outside the time whilst the universe exists with time. As there is no outside of time so god can't exist there. Simples.



    The question I asked wasn't meant to be right or wrong. The subsequent statements that resulted from that question can absolutely be right. I have proven all over this thread that my points are correct whereas yours are wrong.

    1) The big bang is the best model for the beginning of the universe and so is the first cause for the universe. The postulation of its eternal state is one hypothesis. The current big bang model states that it is the uncaused cause.

    2) The first point wasn't a point, more vague suppositions. The big bang can easily be an event and eternal. There's nothing impossible about it. It can be a cause as it's uncaused.



    Christianity is wholly evil full of abhorrent acts. Which is why it has to convince its followers that it's the truth.
    And if there is an outside of time then there is an outside the outside of time. Awesome.



    The bible absolutely promotes that and it's still relevant today,. It hasn't been superceded. My predecessor, jesus, said that not until heaven and earth disappear will the previous law change.

    But perhaps jesus is lying as well? That's why the big bang sent me as the true saviour and your leader. I don't lie.



    Yes, using words you don't understand. I'm not sure whether I should trust this claim here, as you have a history of lying and later changing your posts: Godwin's / Danth's law btw.



    My claim has remained the same. The links have been put up long ago. If you choose not to read them then that's up to you.



    You absolutely admitted you were wrong. I pointed this out to you so you've probably gone back to change your posts. I was nothing but polite and courteous from the outset. Not until you got angry did I condescend you to calm you down. And you've not been angry since. It makes perfect sense. You got triggered and became angry. I condescended you and you calmed down. Simples.



    It so does. No pretending is required and there's nothing moronic about it. I've provided all the answers and you saying, "No, god did it, innit" doesn't make sense.
    An unbeginning beginning makes as much sense as an uncaused cause, and makes as much sense as outside of time.



    You did admit that. You can use quotes, medieval armour or whatever. You admitted that and I didn't have to condescend you for that admission.



    They're only used interchangeably by people who don't understand the terms, and those people tend to be non-scientific. Hypothesis and prediction have two different meanings and they are used interchangeably by people who don't understand the terms.



    You do, so okay.



    The bible is no more proof of jesus' existence than the Spiderman comic series is to the existence of Dr Ock.
    Outside the bible, jesus isn't mentioned any where else. The Romans kept good records and he is not mentioned in any of their records. He is only mentioned outside the bible by people who were born after him and have recounted stories about stories, in the same way that stories about Frankenstein continue to persist after the original telling. It doesn't mean that Frankenstein existed.
    He seems to be a character made up of other mythical figures such as Osiris, Mithras, who had the same origins, the same death as the mythological Jesus Christ.

    To not even be aware of this does not discredit you in any way as you had no credit to begin with.

    So if you accept the mention of jesus in the bible then you accept all the evil if promotes. Good for you.



    I didn't choose to be your new jesus, you chose me. I don't think it's funny myself. This is how jesus must've felt when some people didn't take him seriously either. I wonder if people back then called jesus stupid? But as your new jesus, I forgive you.

    Christianity is pure evil. I believe in the outside of the outside of time but not the outside of time because that doesn't make sense. Time doesn't apply to god because time can't apply to something that doesn't exist. Ya no am sain?
    Can you please condense your arguments down to simple bullet points - it'd be easier.

    But to answer where you said 'There are no Roman records of Jesus' is funny because there are.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrainJuice)
    The reason why people think this can even count as an argument is because the majority of things around them, have been created - so they assume that the same must apply to The Creator. And yet this is just proof that there is an Eternal Creator as if this was the case everything you see would be created.

    We know there must be an Eternal First Cause, as otherwise there would be an infinite regress, meaning that nothing at all would come to existence. Again I've explained above why the human mind might not think this could be possible.
    actually I think that an eternal regress makes complete sense we live in an artificial reality, but the reality that our reality was created in was an artificial reality. What we would define as god made our reality but their reality is artificial and had a creator.

    Now this goes on forever approaching an asymptote that always tends to infinity but never reaches it. but 3.999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999 recuring is =4 so

    we can get an infinity so in fact we can and do have an infinite regress. god created us who was created by their god who was created by their god who was created by their god so on infinity.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: November 11, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.