Proof that God exists (for agnostics/athiests)

[andysw]

It seems like when you read a post, you forget about everything beforehand.

 

1. Someone earlier said that god is "unfathomable."

2. Someone else then said "this is how I feel about god"

3. I said, "well if this is how you feel about God, then why do you read the bible, it seems to know god pretty well."

4. Now you say "well we read it because it's god's word."

 

How does this make sense? If god is so great that he's beyond comprehension, why does the bible even have his words? Shouldn't we know NOTHING about him?

 

Well like I said the bible is your "basic instructions before leaving earth", and you are going to need it because you will be gone after leaving this earth for a verrrrry long time. As well as being your basic instruction after you die, it's a collection of stories which happened before.

 

Upon all that, the bible is the living proof of God. Look at some of the verses which are scientific before modern science.

[disgracian]

Well like I said the bible is your "basic instructions before leaving earth"

Or a "Big Inaccurate Book of Lies and Errors" since we're being intellectual about the whole thing and avoiding inane slogans and catchphrases.

Upon all that, the bible is the living proof of God.

What do you mean by "living"? Because it keeps changing? Seriously, books do not live and this one is roughly 2,000 years old at its youngest. It is proof of nothing.

Look at some of the verses which are scientific before modern science.

That, aside from being a contradiction in terms, is piffle. There is no observation of the natural world in the Bible that could be considered either scientific or anything beyond common sense.

 

Cheers,

D.

[andysw]

Or a "Big Inaccurate Book of Lies and Errors" since we're being intellectual about the whole thing and avoiding inane slogans and catchphrases.

 

What do you mean by "living"? Because it keeps changing? Seriously, books do not live and this one is roughly 2,000 years old at its youngest. It is proof of nothing.

 

That, aside from being a contradiction in terms, is piffle. There is no observation of the natural world in the Bible that could be considered either scientific or anything beyond common sense.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

If you skip through a couple of pages you will find that I have provided a link to the website which tells you the 101 verses which have been proven fact by science.

 

Here's the link: www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

 

I kindly ask you to thoroughly read through all the points given. Do not object until you have read all of them. You may disagree with 2 or more points, but don't get put off because of them.

 

I ask other users to go to the website as well.

[electric_sheep]

You aren't making sense again. An event is something that exists within time so it cannot exist before time. The big bang was probably the first event.

All matter vibrates (a function in time). Electrons exist in orbital shells. It is the interaction of these electron shell that gives you the sense of matter. If there is no vibration in the computer in front of you, then you can push your hand through it like it was never there. It wouldn't be visible. No vibration means no energy, and no mass. It wouldn't exist now would it. If you eliminate time, then there would be no vibration.

 

Honestly, I don't even know why I'm bothering replying to you (well, yes I do), but... first off... I have a masters degree in physical chemistry and I calculated quantum mechanical states of molecules as part of my thesis... so, I think I know a lot more about electrons and orbital's than you (for your information, I wouldn't take those orbitals too seriously... I don't). If you can solve the Schrodinger equation for a one electron system then let me know, and I'll retract the part about knowing more than you.

 

I was in fact pointing out that the OP wasn't making any sense.

 

He starts his argument with a thought experiment about infinity and time. He argues for the impossibility of "time without a beginning", but then suddenly arrives at the conclusion that a powerful, conscious, and intelligent being must have created space/time, and hence this being existed prior to the "start of time". Of course, you must be able to see the contradiction here. "Events" (such as "creation") occur within the space/time fabric, so if an event occurs, then what was presumed to be the "start" of time was in fact not the start. If you didn't follow that... it doesn't really matter, because I know what the response will be... God and creation are "outside" space/time. How can this be, though? Are we supposed to just accept this essentially unfathomably notion without question? This is what I mean by it not even being an answer... but rather just an appeal to stop asking questions. You might as well just blurt out "shazzam", and call that the "the Ultimate Answer". Or 42, hee hee.

 

By the way, I discredit you because you claim to know something you don't know, and you try and make the rest of us feel bad if we don't agree.

 

Fact is, nobody can conceive of things like "time without a beginning", or infinity, or even existence itself. I understand that, when confronted with something beyond their experience or understanding, that people will want to try and make it comfortable and explainable. They will anthropomorphize it, give it intelligence and characteristics they understand.

 

But you can't just blurt out an "answer", an unfathomable one at that, an "answer" which actually doesn't answer anything at all, really, but rather just opens up more questions (if you have an inquisitive mind), and expect the rest of us to believe it. If you do... well, you'll get discredited.

 

My suspicion is your answer is just the tip of the iceburg too. I have a feeling you claim to know all sorts of things about this supreme entity. Now, I have no idea why you find my incredulity surprising.

[electric_sheep]

Sadistic? We are supposed to respect life, especially human life, and give thanks to the Lord. Remember, they are also his creations.

Do you think this life is the only life?

 

Somehow you managed to misunderstand virtually every one of my posts.

 

I'm saying God is sadistic.

 

How are we supposed to "respect" it? By killing it and eating it? I was merely pointing out, that from the perspective of "his" creations (that is, from the perspective of life on this planet), that this was a pretty sick design.

 

Presumably, if "he" was omnipotent, he could have created the world in such a way that life merely needed to breathe air in order to exist. This would have been far more pleasant, particularly if you are at the bottom of the food chain.

[electric_sheep]

The universe started from an infinitesimaly small point. What is your point?

 

This goes back to the "tortise shells all the way" analogy. You can argue that the world sits on the shell of a tortie, and that tortise sits on top of an infinitely tall stack of tortises. There is a breaking point, and if you do not recognize it, too bad.

 

My point is it's entirely possible... I'd say quite likely even, that we may simply not be capable of understanding existence.

 

You throw out words about the "universe starting from an infinitesimaly small point". Assuming that is true, can you really understand that? Can anyone, beyond the fiddling of some math on a page? Don't get me wrong, I love mathematics, and the surprising ability of math to shed light on reality is undeniable, but some of the concepts and ideas it forces us to try and grapple with are not easily within our intuitive reach. It's not enough to just throw words out on the page.

 

I spend 6 months building a Beawolf cluster of Linux computers, which I then used to try and estimate the ground state of the lithium hydride molecule... and I'm still baffled by the schrodinger equation. I think everyone should be.

 

Even if someone can run rings around the mathematics, there is still the nagging question of why? Why the schrodinger equation? Just like Newton's equations, it was just thrown out there as an "answer". An answer which is surprisingly accurate in many situations, but still... why? Science is great at supplying answers (verifiable answers), but it doesn't' even address the question of why.

 

Back to my original point...

 

Do you think an ant in an ant-hill is fully capable of understand his place in the world? How about a fish in a pond? Well, I think it likely, that when it comes to figuring out existence and our place within it, we are mere ants.

[Moose]

Honestly, I don't even know why I'm bothering replying to you (well, yes I do), but...

Yeah, and I know why too....that's beside the point here.

I have a masters degree in physical chemistry and I calculated quantum mechanical states of molecules as part of my thesis... so, I think I know a lot more about electrons and orbital's than you (for your information, I wouldn't take those orbitals too seriously... I don't). If you can solve the Schrodinger equation for a one electron system then let me know, and I'll retract the part about knowing more than you.

Very impressive....for some people....

He starts his argument with a thought experiment about infinity and time. He argues for the impossibility of "time without a beginning", but then suddenly arrives at the conclusion that a powerful, conscious, and intelligent being must have created space/time, and hence this being existed prior to the "start of time". Of course, you must be able to see the contradiction here. "Events" (such as "creation") occur within the space/time fabric, so if an event occurs, then what was presumed to be the "start" of time was in fact not the start. If you didn't follow that... it doesn't really matter, because I know what the response will be... God and creation are "outside" space/time. How can this be, though? Are we supposed to just accept this essentially unfathomably notion without question? This is what I mean by it not even being an answer... but rather just an appeal to stop asking questions. You might as well just blurt out "shazzam", and call that the "the Ultimate Answer". Or 42, hee hee.

The second law of thermodynamics, the expanding universe, and Einstein’s general theory of relativity are all accepted observations of modern science, and they show us that the universe is not eternal—it had a beginning.

 

So, if it had a beginning, then it had a beginner. And this beginner left clear signs of intelligence because this universe includes more than 100 environmental conditions....(more than that as we advance in Science and discoveries), that are precisely tweaked to support life here on earth.

 

Besides, Genesis is VERY clear about, "In THE beginning"

 

In that beginning, God first created the heavens and the earth. The earth was dark, so God created light....

 

The fifth verse God declared seperating light from dark as the, "first" day.

 

The period in between the, "beginning' and the "first day" is confusing to me but has always had me wondering if this isn't the gap that would answer many of the questions we have......such as, how old is the earth anyway?

By the way, I discredit you because you claim to know something you don't know, and you try and make the rest of us feel bad if we don't agree.

Remember when I said I know why you reply to these posts????

[electric_sheep]

So, if it had a beginning, then it had a beginner. And this beginner left clear signs of intelligence because this universe includes more than 100 environmental conditions....(more than that as we advance in Science and discoveries), that are precisely tweaked to support life here on earth.

 

Besides, Genesis is VERY clear about, "In THE beginning"

 

In that beginning, God first created the heavens and the earth. The earth was dark, so God created light....

 

I think it's great that a lot of people on this forum have a strong belief in the Judeo-Christian God and the Bible. What I don't understand is why they feel the necessity to "prove" that they are right?

 

Instead of trying to rely upon faulty intellectual and logical arguments, why can't you simply be content to rely upon your subjective experience, as expressed in faith? That makes far more sense to me. Besides, as has been pointed out, even if it were somehow possible to prove the existence of a creator being, the NATURE of that creator being is still totally up in the air, as there is NO bullet proof, logically sound argument that can prove the Judeo-Christian God is true, or that the Bible is true.

 

Just be happy that you have faith in it. There is nothing wrong with faith. I merely expect you to understand that faith in not enough for all of us, and some of us have faith in a different set of ideas and principles (Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc...).

 

I for one always had an issue with this idea of a "flawed creation". That things were "perfect" at some former time, and that the creator being set things up in such a way as to "test" his creation. Having failed that test, all Hell broke loose. This just seems petty and like total rubbish to me.

 

If there is a creator being, I don't think he toys and plays games with his creation, and I don't think the present universe/reality is some sort of "flawed" or "fallen" universe. I don't believe life is a "test" or sorts. Why create this polarity of Good and Evil when you could just create "good"?

 

No. None of that makes sense to me. I believe, if this universe is indeed the result of some sort of creation, that it was created exactly as it was intended. The creator doesn't need our approval, and he certainly doesn't need our devotion. It seems far more probably to me that the universe just "IS". We as humans project this idea of "evil" on the things about this universe we don't like.

 

As for the anthropomorphic principle, there are many arguments and counter-arguments (see wikipedia for an overview). I for one like the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics. Can I prove it? Nope.

[Moose]

There is no way for you to understand unless you have Christ abiding in you.

 

Just like a man cannot experience, or know what it's like to carry another living being in his belly, the un-believer cannot accept God unless God is within him.

 

I don't expect you to understand, and pretty much what you've said in your posts ring true.....for instance, there is no possible way for a finite being to understand that which is infinite, and God doesn't, "toy" with His creation.

[Lovelybird]

It seems far more probably to me that the universe just "IS". We as humans project this idea of "evil" on the things about this universe we don't like.

But isn't it amazing how close and perfect the Bible describes the world? and what behaviours will cause what kind of consequences? if we observe closely, we are controlled by universal moral rules. we can do whatever we want, IS a delusion

[disgracian]

But isn't it amazing how close and perfect the Bible describes the world? and what behaviours will cause what kind of consequences? if we observe closely, we are controlled by universal moral rules. we can do whatever we want, IS a delusion

Not really. For starters, the Bible does not perfectly describe the world. Every other religion and philosophical system are also capable of observing that actions have consequences.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

I kindly ask you to thoroughly read through all the points given. Do not object until you have read all of them.

Too bad, because I stopped after a dozen. They may be new and interesting to you, but all these claims are old and have been refuted. Sorry andy, but it's just not worth my time to beat this dead horse yet again.

 

Good luck with all your future attempts to push your delusions on others.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

Not really. For starters, the Bible does not perfectly describe the world. Every other religion and philosophical system are also capable of observing that actions have consequences.

 

Cheers,

D.

Every other religion doesn't follow the dynamics of Scripture from Genesis to Revelations either...

Good luck with all your future attempts to push your delusions on others.

Let's agree on one thing at least.....I'm asking, not debating....

 

Since you cannot prove otherwise, our, "delusions" are just as equal to your, "knowledge" based on personal experiences and circumstances....true or not?

 

If so, you have no right, (which happens to be OUR believe) to judge who's delusional, or who's intelligient..

 

Fact is, we can't begin to understand all.....ALL...when you can claim that you do, then you can claim who's delusional, and who's sane.....

[disgracian]

Every other religion doesn't follow the dynamics of Scripture from Genesis to Revelations either

So what? Your religion doesn't follow the dynamics of the Sutras or the Eightfold Path.

Since you cannot prove otherwise, our, "delusions" are just as equal to your, "knowledge" based on personal experiences and circumstances....true or not?

No they're not. It is your "delusions" that are unprovable, illogical and often contrary to knowledge that humans have gained by more reliable and rigorous means.

 

Since you are a religious person, I find it laughably ironic that you are attacking false certainty in others. There's a saying in your own book about beams and motes that I think applies here.

If so, you have no right, (which happens to be OUR believe) to judge who's delusional, or who's intelligient..

I have every right to think for myself and call things as I see them. Your objections to freedom of thought are noted though.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

So what? Your religion doesn't follow the dynamics of the Sutras or the Eightfold Path.

I'm not going to debate with you over which religion is the, "correct" religion. God reveals Himself to every man.....doesn't matter to me how.

No they're not. It is your "delusions" that are unprovable, illogical and often contrary to knowledge that humans have gained by more reliable and rigorous means.

You're the master of taking things out of context, I don't know why you even bother....most of what you post is babble anyway.....by saying this, you're claiming to know it all....that's good for you, now why don't you share this wealth and cure world hunger and bring peace to every nation? What's seems to be your hold-up?

I find it laughably ironic that you are attacking false certainty in others.

I by no means am attacking anyone or anything. You're unwillingness to admit that you DON'T know it all, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you CAN'T dismiss God's existence......that drives you crazy....

I have every right to think for myself and call things as I see them. Your objections to freedom of thought are noted though.

You're absolutely right.....why not allow everyone else the same luxury? Are you special or sumthin'?

[disgracian]

by saying this, you're claiming to know it all

By saying what I did, I claimed that humans can know some things to a reasonable degree of certainty. I doubt that anybody's comprehension can be that bad, so I can only conclude that you're deliberately misreading even the most basic things I say.

You're absolutely right.....why not allow everyone else the same luxury? Are you special or sumthin'?

How am I preventing anybody from thinking for themselves by exercising my own right? Please attempt back up this utterly ridiculous statement, I could do with a laugh after the week I've had.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

Sorry to hear you've had a bad week.....hope everything works out for you....

 

What I meant is that even with knowing things with a degree a certainty, no one could possible know it all.....not even you.

 

So to call what we believe, "delusional" is a total shot in the dark for you, and insulting to the rest of us.

 

Personally, I think you purposely throw these blows out to see what kind of reaction you get from some of us. I've learned to ignore most of what you say, by my Brother's and Sister's in Christ haven't and don't need these arrows shot at them....

 

Hope your week smooths out for ya.....

[NoIDidn't]

I agree that Disgracian can't prevent anyone from believing differently, but the delusional comment backs up Moose's claim. Calling another's belief system delusional, devalues it.

 

Why purposefully devalue what you don't believe unless your goal is to win converts to your way of thinking?

[disgracian]

What I meant is that even with knowing things with a degree a certainty, no one could possible know it all.....not even you.

Nobody has to "know it all" to make a decision. I could just as easily turn this back at you and say that since you don't know it all, it's a "total shot in the dark" to be a Christian and it's insulting for the rest of us for you to run around saying you're saved and we're not. Under your argument, nobody could justifiably make a decision about anything because there might be something they don't know.

So to call what we believe, "delusional" is a total shot in the dark for you, and insulting to the rest of us.

It may be insulting, but that's just something we all have to deal with. As indicated above, I find a large part of most organised religions to be very insulting, both to me and humanity in general.

 

A definition for dulsion is "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact". I think that most religious beliefs fit into this description like a lycra bodysuit.

Personally, I think you purposely throw these blows out to see what kind of reaction you get from some of us. I've learned to ignore most of what you say, by my Brother's and Sister's in Christ haven't and don't need these arrows shot at them....

Well I don't. I throw my opinions into the public arena in much the same way as you or James or Maoi or anybody else here. If you really have a problem with me arguing for what I believe in then I will gladly leave and never come back...providing you do the same.

Hope your week smooths out for ya.....

It has. Today I have been in the garden all morning, weeding and mowing and pruning. It does one good to get back to nature, even if in the typical human way of hacking and slashing it back into what we think it should be.

 

Cheers,

D.

[disgracian]

I agree that Disgracian can't prevent anyone from believing differently' date=' but the delusional comment backs up Moose's claim. Calling another's belief system delusional, devalues it.[/quote']

That's fine with me; I think organised religion is valued far too highly.

Why purposefully devalue what you don't believe unless your goal is to win converts to your way of thinking?

I'm not allowed to have my own Great Commission?

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moose]

I'm not allowed to have my own Great Commission?

Welllllll.....there we go folks.....the REAL Truth about our friend comes out.

 

You're fighting an already lost battle then, I'm afraid.

 

Religion, (no matter what denomination) is here to stay, and if I were a betting man, I'd say you're pretty much out numbered.....you've taken on a battle of epic proportion......

A definition for dulsion is "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact". I think that most religious beliefs fit into this description like a lycra bodysuit

Tangible evidence that I and all True Believers have proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt that our belief isn't false.

 

It's not tangible to you, or to anyone else who rejects this gift, so don't bother asking me to prove it again.

 

You'll just have to take my word for it, just as you would if someone told you they had cancer....

I could just as easily turn this back at you and say that since you don't know it all, it's a "total shot in the dark" to be a Christian and it's insulting for the rest of us for you to run around saying you're saved and we're not.

AH.....but you see....it was a, "shot in the dark". It was called Faith. And because of that Faith, I now believe. And now that I believe, and He's come into my heart I now KNOW.....

I throw my opinions into the public arena in much the same way as you or James or Maoi or anybody else here.

I know it's not just me who think you express your opinions as fact. Maoi does the very same thing.....I think if you want a constructive discussion, you should at least word your opinions in a way that suggests the differences between the two.....if....and that's a big IF, you want to be respectful.

[andysw]

I'll start with a simple question, if I promise to give you a chocolate bar after an infinite amount of time will I ever give you the chocolate bar? No. Another question, could there be an infinite amount of time before right now? No, because we would never of reached this moment of time.

 

We can conclude that time started a finite amount of time ago. Meaning, according to the bible, about 6000 years. It can be determined that time started some time ago, and before that there was no time.

 

Scientists say that matter can't be created or destroyed. So, has matter always existed? No, because it's already determined that time didn't always exist and you can't have matter without time. Nor can you have matter without space. If you have matter where would you put it? Space And when would you put it? Time.

 

So here's the problem, we know that there wasn't always time and thus we have to include that there wasn't always matter.

 

Lets just say we don't know what caused matter, time and space. But what we do know is that whatever created them was immensly powerful and extremely intelligent.

 

Who created God? The question itself is a fallacy; it doesn't make sense. How can God be created? He wouldn't be God if He was created. He always existed. You might ask how could God always existed? Where did He come from? If He always existed He didn't come from any where. He's always been there. And you might ask how is that possible? Fair question. There is a general principle that says either everything came from nothing or something always existed and created everything that is created. You have no other choice. So which is it? Did everything come from nothing? Or did something that always existed did? Which is it?

 

If you're on a side of logic you will certainly agree that nothing can only make nothing. So something that always existed created everything. And whatever created everything always existed. So if something always existed then the universe, matter, time and space has always existed and we don't need to invoke God into the equation. Here's the problem with that. To claim the universe is eternal (always existed and always will) is to apply properties of infinity to the universe.

 

Lets try to apply properties of infinity or eternality to matter, time and space and if it can be shown that matter, time and space could not be eternal or infinite that means they are created by something that is not made of matter, time and space which would then have the properties of God (being immaterial, eternal and omnipresent).

 

Lets start by showing that matter, time and space cannot be eternal. Time is the measure of changes in matter. Imagine flicking a light switch once. If I'm going to say that I will give you a chocolate bar after you flicked a light switch an infinite amount of times will I ever give you the chocolate bar? No, because you can't flick an infinite amount of times and you'll go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... and you'll go on forever and you'll never reach infinity and you will always have a finite amount of switch flicks. You cannot have an infinite amount of finite things. So time had a beginning because we know that there couldn't have been an infinite amount of time before right now. That's simply logical. Could there have been an infinate amount of changes because time is the measure of change. Could there have been an infinate amount of change between two events? Like the chocolate bar example. Could I give you something between now and an event in the future when there's an infinite amount of changes time in between the two events? No, of course not. That means there couldn't have been an infinite amount of time (changes) before right now because we would never have reached this moment in time.

 

If time is finite which means time (change) had a beginning and you can't have matter without time because if you have matter when do you put it? But there's another way that matter can't be infinite either. It's the same way as using the light switch there can't be an infinite amount of finite things then all we need to do is show you that matter itself is finite. Take the nearest object to you (in my case a mouse). How many time would I have to multiply, subtract, add or divide my mouse against itself in order to reach infinity? Lets try it, I have 1 mouse, and now I have 2 mouses, and now I have 3 mouses, etc. How many time will I have to do this in order to reach infinity? The answer is I would never reach infinity for the same reason you can't flick a light switch an infinite amount of times. That proofs that there's only a finite amount of matter because you can't have an infinite amount of finite things.

 

So, we know that matter and time are finite which means they had a beginning. They're created and they cannot be infinite which means space cannot cannot be infinate because space is only the measure of the distance between matter and if matter seized to exist they'd be a vacuum they'd be no space. If matter is finite that means space is finite there's only a finite distance between the two farthest peices of matter in all of reality.

 

So now we know matter, time and space are finite. They're not infinate for they're not eternal. That means they had a beginning. So what created matter, time and space? If you exist without time and time is the measure of changes you never change that means there's no past, future there's only an eternal now and that's exactly what the bible says Hebrews 13:8 "God is the same yesterday, today and forever" because He has never changed and He will never change. He is God, He is eternal, He has always been. Has it ever occured to you that nothing ever occured to God? The past, present and future are all one. And that is why God knows the future because He is eternal and exists outside of time.

 

If you exist without matter that means you are immaterial. You can't be touched, smelled, tasted, or seen. You are not made of matter.

 

If you exist without space that means you are inspacial or omnipresent, you are every where. You're not bound by spacial restrictions.

 

So, something, and we know this is a fact, because we know that matter, time and space were created and the only thing that can create matter, time and space is by something that exists without matter, time and space because if they exist with matter, time and space then matter, time and space wouldn't be created. So, we know matter, time and space were created by something that exists without matter, time and space and to exist without matter, time and space means you are eternal, omnipresent and immaterial. Which are the very traits of God.

 

So, something that always existed that is invisible and untouchable and is every where created matter, time and space. What does that sound like to you?

 

The only question left is which God is it? How can we know which religion is true? God exists without matter, time and space which means God knows the future and is everywhere. The bible is a book and it predicts the future thousands of times and no other religious books or scripture in the world predicts the future like the bible does. Isaiah 46:9-10 "I am God and there is no one like me declaring the end from the beginning". That is proof that the bible is written by God because men do not know the future but the bible does.

[disgracian]

Welllllll.....there we go folks.....the REAL Truth about our friend comes out.

Evidently you missed the smiley face following that remark.

Tangible evidence that I and all True Believers have proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt that our belief isn't false.

 

It's not tangible to you, or to anyone else who rejects this gift, so don't bother asking me to prove it again.

Then it isn't tangible at all, and you have never proven anything. Please learn the meaning of words before you use them.

You'll just have to take my word for it, just as you would if someone told you they had cancer

Sorry, but unlike cancer, God doesn't show up on a CT scan. Epic fail.

I know it's not just me who think you express your opinions as fact.

Then you and whoever else you're referring to are wrong.

 

Cheers,

D.

[NoIDidn't]

Then you and whoever else you're referring to are wrong.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Wrong that they feel you offer as facts are really just your opinions? Or wrong because you feel you actually post facts and not opinions?

[disgracian]

Wrong that I offer my opinions as fact. I try wherever convenient and whenever I remember to preface my remarks with "in my opinion...", "I think..." etc.

 

Personally I think Moose makes these little digs at me because he can't offer any worthwhile on-topic rebuttal, and it's an easy way out to have a go at somebody who is very blunt and forthright for their style of posting instead.

 

Cheers,

D.