zooloo wrote:
K wrote:
Zooloo, if you look back my original post was asking (the charming) Veritas to pose a question to his friend which was not unreasonable to anyone with an open mind. For some reason you seem to have taken it upon yourself to incite an argument about nothing and simply because I'm not idiotic enough to stoop to your level of pointlessness and go out of my way to provide evidence, you crown yourself the winner of 'nothing' with a smiley. Well done sir, crack open the champagne.

Oh and if you do invent a time machine please do make a point of travelling into the past and "proving" to the people of that time you're from the future. I look forward to checking my history books for "the cremation of 'future boy'".
This is a very odd post, I am at a loss to why you've starting insulting me.

I haven't been rude have I? If you post something on a public forum it's perfectly reasonable for others to respond to that post, is it not.

Your comment that you are not idiotic enough to provide some foundation or evidence to back-up an assertion seems rather bizarre - how is that being idiotic?

WTF?TBH you got my back up when you asked for reference, the 100s of witnesses and video footage since I felt I

K wrote:
[quote]zooloo wrote:
K wrote:
Zooloo, if you look back my original post was asking (the charming) Veritas to pose a question to his friend which was not unreasonable to anyone with an open mind. For some reason you seem to have taken it upon yourself to incite an argument about nothing and simply because I'm not idiotic enough to stoop to your level of pointlessness and go out of my way to provide evidence, you crown yourself the winner of 'nothing' with a smiley. Well done sir, crack open the champagne.

Oh and if you do invent a time machine please do make a point of travelling into the past and "proving" to the people of that time you're from the future. I look forward to checking my history books for "the cremation of 'future boy'".
This is a very odd post, I am at a loss to why you've starting insulting me.

I haven't been rude have I? If you post something on a public forum it's perfectly reasonable for others to respond to that post, is it not.

Your comment that you are not idiotic enough to provide some foundation or evidence to back-up an assertion seems rather bizarre - how is that being idiotic?

WTF?TBH you got my back up when you asked for reference, the 100s of witnesses and video footage since I felt I

What about in Terminator? These guys have discovered time travel, but can only travel in the nuddy...

Personally I believe in the afterlife and I belong to the Spiritualist Church (maybe we'll go to jail for that soon with the new law) and I always get amused by those who form Skeptics groups.

They claim we can't prove in life after death..but of course they can't prove there isn't life after death. Stalemate !

veritas wrote:
Personally I believe in the afterlife and I belong to the Spiritualist Church (maybe we'll go to jail for that soon with the new law) and I always get amused by those who form Skeptics groups.

They claim we can't prove in life after death..but of course they can't prove there isn't life after death. Stalemate !
Nay, it's not stalemate at all. The standard answer is you're are using a logical fallacy known as "Argument from Ignorance".

In short the proposition is that it's true from the fact that it is not known to be false.

In this instance the non-existence of an after-life is consistent with no one being able to prove it's non-existence. (I'm not suggesting that proves it's non-existence but it most certainly doesn't prove it's existence)

There 's a list of logical fallacies here - it's very interesting and quite surprising how often we can fall into such errors.

(It's worth bearing in mind that "proof" only exists in the realm of mathematics. In reality we have degrees of certainty)

you mean Murphy's Law was never true !!

veritas wrote:
you mean Murphy's Law was never true !!
...which would mean Murphy's Law went wrong ...so it's right!