Lightforce

The reason I said it wasn't important is because it can't answer the question of existence due to it being observer dependent. If something is observer dependent, it relies on senses, and could therefore be wrong. What I'm addressing is non contradictory arguments, that are observer independent. God "just is" is rationally flawed, as it posits a creator that didn't need to be created. That is contradictory. Matter always existing is some form requires no creation. It didn't come from anywhere. There is no contradiction.

If evidence supports an idea temporarily until something better comes along, then you've not found the answer in the first place. The way you work out answers to questions of existence is to use non contradictory rational arguments, not changeable evidence. The reason why atheists/non believers have been going around in circles with theists/deists for centuries is because they've been using arguments that allow those theists to plug god into the equation. Like a big bang "creation" event. If you start with that premise, you won't win, god gets plugged in there as an alternative, it's not incorrect because it follows the same logic you've posited with the big bang answer. You need to have an answer that has NO alternative, otherwise you've left it open to competing propositions that can't be refuted. The above was not specifically addressed to AngryofTuebrook, you mentioned evidence and I wanted to expand on that by making a general point.

Matter is eternal, whether the big bang even happened or what this universe looked like nearly 15 billion years ago isn't important. The only rational explanation for the universe is that matter is eternal. Any alternative argument involves special pleading, they are contradictory, and therefore irrational. ALL religious arguments fail due to this. You don't need to get to grips with any "beginning" explanations, as there is no beginning.

When you lower your wage demands.

Takes one to know one, Phony lad. Less sucking cock, more watching football ok? That way you'll know a bit more about players besides their names. Have a great day.

Hummels is way more talented than Lovren, he can do more than defend really well. Hummels is excellent on the ball as well, great at passing the ball out of defence to start attacks. In fact he's better on the ball than a lot midfielders, certainly better than just about every defender. He also doesn't have the glaring weakness of only being able to slide and intercept using his right foot like Lovren does.

You got to love a straw man, you've got a field full of them. First of all, arguing with us about whats legal, when we are talking MORAL, they're linked in some ways but there are laws for lots of things that you may think are immoral, so they're not identical. WE KNOW HE WASN'T OFFERING DISCOUNT ON MULTIPLE PURCHASES. We got it. I don't know how many different ways I, or SD, or anybody, can make that any more clear. WE have reading comprehension skills, ok? What we are arguing, is that he SHOULD DISCOUNT DELIVERY ON MULTIPLE ITEMS WHEN THE SITUATION ARISES. OK? DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND NOW? I already made the point that you and your dimwitted acolytes fail to understand. Do you think it's reasonable to charge somebody £35 to post 10 pairs of jeans in the same package? If it isn't, then you are admitting you understand the principle of charging a delivery price that represents the cost to post that item. Go and debate something where there's a chance you'd be right. This isn't it.

Doesn't forgetting to do something right imply that the thing he did originally was wrong, regardless of intent?

You left out the bit where I said, "have it in mind", it's a very important part. If you intend to be fair, you don't have to mention it, you just do it (I may have infringed on copyright there ;-))

The "fuckin' 'ell" from the sheep episode.

Somebody being fair would offer combined postage in the first place, or at least have it in mind if the same person was to purchase multiple items from them. You can't go, "oh well, it's the same person who's just ordered more than one of my items, I'll still charge him as if I'm sending to different people." It isn't fair, we should move on to talking about things where there's a minuscule chance I could be wrong, which is not the case on this topic.

They can neg away all they like, it's still wrong, as I've explained, maybe it will sink in. People shouldn't be defending this with hostility, why not hold your hands up and say, "yeah, maybe this postage pricing policy results in inconsistent Maybe using the word conned is OTT, but it is unfair, because you would change the pricing structure for more items, yet think it's ok if you're only posting 2. It's inconsistent. What's the magic number for when you start to alter the postage price more accurately to reflect parcel size? 3 items? 4? 5? You should charge what it costs to deliver the item. That's it.

SD is right though. Charging multiple postage is not fair practice. What if you were selling ten pairs, or ten of any clothing items? Would you think charging the guy £35 postage would still be reasonable? Of course it isn't. People shouldn't have to get in touch with you to not charge them £35 for sending them 10 of the same item, or £7 for 2 in this case. It doesn't matter if it's 2, 5, 10, the principle is the same. I'm using the 10 example to show how ridiculous the price of postage could be for a parcel that wouldn't be very big. If you say, "of course I wouldn't charge £35 for the 10 items" then you are essentially saying I'll rip him off when it's 2 items, but if it's more than some random number I decide, then I'll charge fairly. Bollocks. It's wrong, stop doing it.

What the....? Near 1 in 2 goal record in the league and Champions League and 1 in 3 for his country. On top of that 23 assists last season domestically. Can play as a support striker or any of the attacking midfield positions. If there is a player that could be any more of a Brendan Rodgers type player besides Suarez, I haven't seen him. He scores, he creates, he's quick, he's skilful, takes a mean freekick, can finish like a striker, and can score spectacular goals. He is perfect for Liverpool.

How about a forward with an overall near 1 in 2 goal record in the league and Champions League and 1 in 3 for his country? On top of that 23 assists last season domestically. Can play as a support striker or any of the attacking midfield positions. Is that player an overpriced show pony or are you talking out of your behind?

That's why it doesn't impress me when players seem so desperate to move to us. It isn't the prospect of playing for Liverpool that's the draw, it's the massive hike in wages they get. We should be sceptical of these players. The way Lovren talks in such a self entitled manner is as if he's like a footballing great whose needs must be met at all costs. If he plays badly we should hammer him mercilessly. Does anybody really believe that he was taken in by promises of Southampton becoming a team that would challenge for Europe and keep their best players? How on earth would that have happened in today's game? When players impress at clubs like that they get bought by bigger clubs. He really is just after his big payday, that's why he's desperate. If you were being denied from potentially earning double/triple what you're on now, you'd probably start acting up out of frustration. Playing football is the furthest thing from his mind right now and that doesn't sit well with me one bit.

I'm in tears now, like Neymar.

The grasshopper would have lost the ugly contest hands down if Tevez was selected.

I didn't give 2 shits when Neymar got hurt. He's cried wolf so many times, it's karma baby. Enjoy the back brace bitch.

Somebody should let him know we're about to sell our best player. What he really wants is a big pay day. Anybody taken in by his oh so wonderful desire to force his way into Anfield is naive. I wish a lot of the players we've signed would have shown the same determination on the pitch as they did in getting a move to us in the first place.

I hope that happens but it seems we can't stop ourselves once we enter "shop at Lidl" mode.

Wow, got rid of him for 9 million pounds! Did he cost them 20 million to buy originally then? No, what actually happened is they sold him for more than they bought him for so didn't "get rid of him" like you claim. Lyon aren't exactly tearing it up in France at the moment (finished 28 points behind the champions) so the idea that they get rid of international defenders because they would be better off without them is laughable. Did he all of a sudden developed amazing defending skills last season did he? To make him worth over double? Skills that the scouts thought he never had before at age 23 but miraculously attained over the course of a few months up to age 24?

You're right, it was a fuck load. He had an amazing 21 assists in the league, not the 11 or whatever the 'official' Premier League stats say, it's 21. Winning penalties and free-kicks that lead to goals are just as important as other assists. The penalties he won against the manc cunts and the hammer cunts for example, were not credited as assists, which is a complete joke. He forced players to concede them due to his skill, they should count. I count them and I don't give a fuck how anybody else counts them up. I repeat, it's TWENTY FUCKING ONE league assists.

That's like being the most attractive person in the burns unit.