Woof999

Unless you're checking 1000 cubic meters of polystyrene or 1000 boxes of potato chips, you're paying for the combined weight of all your luggage, typically across the whole PNR number (the booking reference). ie if there are two of you on the same booking and you both have 25kg allowance, you could check a 15kg bag and the other traveller could check one 20kg and one 15kg for a total of 3 bags.

A gift receipt typically doesn't have the pricing on it. It's a proof of purchase rather than a proof of purchase at a specific amount, but it can be matched to a full receipt in the POS system.

A great answer. The only part that I'd probably question (which I'm sure comes as no surprise to you) is around intelligent design. Early life existed with simple, single celled organisms made from the most abundant elements on the planet. Given billions of years I don't think it's much of a jump to get where we are today. I guess one needs to define what their definition of god is too. If someone said that it was "whatever force / entity / thing was behind the existence of the universe" then I couldn't possibly disagree. I might not call it "God" though. I think I'd use "Bob" instead. Could there be an intelligent creator behind everything? Of course. But what created the creator? I love the point about science and big investors, although I'm not sure what they would lose if science ever proved the existence of a religious god (or any other).

Use the car mostly but I've had 2 Honda Clicks and if the current one dies it would almost certainly be replaced by another. If you're likely carrying a passenger often then I'd go for something bigger. Apart from that I think they are superb, ultra reliable and great value for money.

Indeed. Make sure it doesn't have the steam function.

So let's start based on the OPs original post - do you believe in god and why? I've purposely written god in lower case. I've tried to back up my answer with reasons, going into quite some detail about what formed my opinions and beliefs. Almost all believers have answered with comments such as "just look around you" or "you're not open minded enough to begin to understand". For me that doesn't cut the mustard. They might as well have answered by writing "just because I do" and leave it there. To me it suggests that their belief is based on nothing tangible or that they just don't know, or that it's the easiest answer without having to really think about it. I've given some relatively detailed answers about why I'm a non-believer. Perhaps you might do the same to support your position. I'll ask a couple of questions? Did you ask about the big bang because you believe that recent JWST images suggest it can't have happened? Do you think that scientists wont follow new knowledge because it might make them re-evaluate what they believed they already knew?

Only if you promise not to think that bang = explosion.

You can blame me )

There's thinking outside the box and then there's Hans Christian Andersen ????

Thanks again for your reply. We're comparing very different geological events. This article The University of Waikato goes a long way to explain the differences of the Grand Canyon vs Mt St Helens example you gave. This is exactly my point. How much true science is involved in faith and in the belief of your god? I'm not sure that evolution theory ever set out to explain the existence of instincts, but their existence does support the theory. An animal lacking the basic instincts for survival will likely not.... well, survive. I'd find it hard to find a better example of survival of the fittest and natural selection. I expect they are astronimical, but we live in an astronomical universe. Trillions of galaxies each containing trillions of solar systems each having the potential to have existed for billions of years means that we are dividing a huge number by another huge number to work out probabilities. Also remember that every life form ever discovered (to date) is based on the most abundant elements in the universe. We're not made of plutonium or unobtainium, we're made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, iron and others. We cannot help but see these elements all around us. Typically, humans perceive time-spans based on those that they are familiar with. Weeks, years, decades, a lifetime, a generation. Anything larger becomes hard to fathom. 14 and then some billion years of possibilities is beyond the comprehension of most of us mere mortals. I'd estimate my knowledge is more than most and less than many. Science could not explain how matter gains mass. It was hypothesised (by scientists) that an undiscovered particle must exist and they even had a good estimate for the energy level (or mass as E=MC2) of that particle. The LHC paid for itself many times over on that amazing day in early July ten years ago. I think that highlights one major issue with the bible. Much of it is specific. Certainly much of the darker passages (murder, rape, incest, hate... i could go on), but much of it that is used to explain the existence of a god is so abstract that it could be used to explain anything, or nothing. My mother allowed me to go out on my bike, to fall off my bike, to scratch myself and for my body's immune system to grow stronger because of it. She showed love by tending to my wounds. However, if I had tried to put my hand on a hot stove or into a fire she would have physically stopped me, again showing me her love. Or perhaps she was due for a night out down the bingo and really didn't want to spend a few hours in A&E. Either way I am grateful. There is allowing those you love to make mistakes that will make them stronger and then there is allowing those you pretend to love to make mistakes that will cause them real lifelong harm. Noah's flood, if one is to believe that it ever happened, is a good example to prove that your god does not allow us to make mistakes without paying a price. In this case the ultimate price. That was out of love? Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would believe the woman in the example you give. However, if your god came to me in the milliseconds before a car crash that would surely take my life and clearly prevented it happening, then asking me if I believed he loved me.... my answering in the affirmative would be totally believable. The god of your bible does hold a gun to people's heads. Aren't we destined for eternal hell if we are not true believers? I think that shows a huge misunderstanding and does a massive injustice to those that hold differing opinions than yours. You know little to nothing about my life, my mistakes, my achievements, my joy or anything else. To assume that your level of happiness, with your god, is elevated above mine, without your god, is pure arrogance. (I've worded that to be both as accurate and non-confrontational as possible, while still making the point, because you're clearly a good person). If god is all seeing, all knowing and all powerful, plus loves us as much as you want me to believe, then he knows our weaknesses. He knows what choices we will make before we know ourselves. Which means he's caused every one of those problems. Either than or he's not as good, loving or powerful as you think you know he is.

Don't forget that water offers not only resistance but buoyancy too. It may take more work to push your legs through the water but they are supporting significant;y less weight.

AAH, first of all, thank you very much for your replies. I truly appreciate the effort you are putting into answering my questions. So here are some more ???? In science, theory does not mean what many think it means. A theory is not a guess, even a good one. It is knowledge that is based on demonstrable fact, peer reviewed and shown to be accurate within the current bounds of that knowledge. Before a theory, would come a hypothesis. The theory of natural evolution matches those criteria (of a theory). Creation by a higher power would be a hypothesis at best, more likely a busted hypothesis because of the overwhelming evidence to disprove it, much of which, of course, has come from the theory of evolution. Then I'm afraid you're misunderstanding science, or you're basing your opinion on false science or charlatan scientists. Science does not involve the need for faith which is a fundamental requirement for a religion. Real science does not follow preconceived paths nor have an agenda whereby results would be skewed to match that agenda any more than mathematics does. Sure there are humans involved in science that have those very traits, but peer review and new techniques will eventually bust them. Even wrong science can be useful. An example would be Newtonian gravity. It has been shown by Einsteinian gravity that the former does not hold true for huge mass (think black hole mass) or speeds approaching C. However you can still launch a space ship accurately around our universe just using the former with high precision. Not bad for busted science. Similarly, Neptune was discovered by pure science (and a lot of maths) because of unexplained wobbles in the orbit of Uranus. Newtonian gravity would have done the job perfectly there too. These are your opinions of course. They also show that your god is arrogant or at least short tempered. How dare us flawed (as we and your god must know) humans ask for any kind of real proof of such a commanding being's presence. He will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, although he truly loves us all? Surely you mean most religious people? I live not far from Laos and visit there relatively often. I've seen all sorts over here (and back in the west). A fake lame person being healed in minutes with nothing more than a prayer and some music is a circus trick almost surely. If it were real it would have made top slot on every news show around the world. All the world's lame would be heading to Laos for this cure. You're far too intelligent to believe is was real. Which brings us back to all the suffering in the world. Even ignoring starvation, natural disasters, cancer et al, why, if god loves us, are some babies born with terrible deformations? It's a very strange way to show love. If my mother allowed my life to be filled with misery I'd surely question her love, so why wouldn't I question your god? Even if he doesn't allow us to. There have been numerous human remains discovered that are much older than this (40,000 times older). To bring in a reply you've given to a later thread, not all of these discoveries rely on C14 dating, but even the most generous of estimates would put the ages of these human remains way outside your timescale. Like... way outside. Again, to show a point about science not having an agenda, it is scientists using science that have discovered that the burning of fossil fuels is skewing the ratios of C14 and C12, although not likely to make a 6000 year old corpse appear to be quarter of a million. Again, science has no agenda to disprove the existence of god, it's just going where it's going and doing a good job of it anyway. As above. This is a fanciful opinion (surely you know that), is based on zero evidence of any kind and still assumes that all of science must have an anti-creator agenda. Do we really need to discuss this one? ???? There's a Guy Works Down the Chip Shop Swears He's Elvis ???? Let's just take once example (that is repeated several times in the old testament. The bible claims that Earth was made before the sun and stars. The early universe did not contain the heavier elements (iron for example) that make up a decent percentage of Earth's mass. Some of those elements (according to science of course) could only be made in the cores of stars by nuclear fusion. If iron could not have existed before the stars, how was Earth made first? I expect I could find plenty of other examples or errors of contradictions. I'm not for one moment doubting you, but your ancestors would very much be the exception to the norm.

Out of interest, how long ago do you believe Adam and Eve existed? Roughly at what age did they die? If there were giants, why is there zero fossil (or any other direct) evidence to support them ever existing? How literal do you take the writings in the bible? If not 100%, please give some examples of what you think is literal and what may perhaps be embellishment? If that is the case, why would the authors / assemblers of the bible include both fiction and non-fiction in the same works without making it clear which was which? There is also little to no evidence to suggest that we (humans) were ever able to cure disease / infection to the level we can today. There is much evidence to suggest that we used to live shorter lives and were smaller and shorter in stature. As both medicine and the understanding of nutrition has improved, life expectancy has increased and physical sizes have trended upwards.

I was addressing the latter. I'd genuinely be interested to learn more about this more convincing evidence that has come to light in recent years. Which would suggest that this "anyone" does not have an open mind, something which another poster accused the non-believers of up thread. Science is not trying to disprove either the existence of or the possibility of there being a god. That's not how science works. I see some true beauty in the love that is shown by many people. Both those with faith and those without. However I also see the true evil in others, again both those with faith and those without. I'm often told that the best evidence of god's existence (the god of the bible) is in the good and the great of humanity while those same scholars dismiss all evil as just a way of god testing us. Well we've been failing that test for thousands of years, so it's time for god to get with the program, update his tests or maybe throw in a new miracle or two that might make us all believers. Heck, repeat some of the miracle greatest hits. Part the Red Sea again, cure some more lepers with nothing more than the touch of a hand. Anything substantive would do.

...because the traditional definition of electrocution was death by electric shock. I'm guessing that like many words, the definition has evolved over time. For me, I would still read electrocution as involving a death.

The UK sent Prince Andrew to the late King's funeral. Perhaps Thailand will send Boss Red Bull?

That's hardly helpful now is it! This is Thailand. Thingy translates as "สิ่งที่", so look for that somewhere on the shop front.

That's not how evidence works. You can do better than that. A child is open minded. As a child, I believed in God (moreso that belief was forced into me at organisations such as sunday school). Yes, god (depending on your definition) could exist. However, the vast majority of empirical evidence to date suggests otherwise and that trend in knowledge has always been against the existence of god. Where did I say that? Your whole point here is that you cannot deny god without knowing everything, which is impossible. Again, there is a trend towards the finality of knowing though and that trend is not on your god's side. I think that's the difference. 0.00000000000001% probability still makes something possible. What percentage probability would you give that your god does exist? That really is a spin. Look at all the religions that have existed up until this day. Compare the people in power at the top of those religions against anyone you've ever been aware of than is not religious. Where is the agenda? Those honour killings and stonings (which still happen today) are the direct result of someone's belief in a god. Are you suggesting that only those that believe in your god are correct. Everyone else (and all those that worshiped many thousands of different gods in the past) are wrong? Why is someone's religion mostly (by a huge margin) defined by their place of birth and the beliefs of their parents rather than them opening their eyes and seeing the evidence for themselves? Where did I suggest otherwise? In the olden days, according to the book that is the very basis of most westerner's religion, your god and his son showed themselves in burning bushes, parting huge seas, turning water into wine and a breadstick into a feast for thousands. He commanded Noah to build an ark while he murdered the majority of those he created. Nowadays he often seems to embody himself as an old man in a frock abusing young boys behind an altar. I'm not sure I would ever want to believe in an all powerful entity that overseas such. So is god just a convenient fashion until something better comes along? Evolution is pretty central to it. Many take their belief from the bible. Some go even as far to believe it is 100% factual (which is hard to fathom). Evolution goes against god creating man in his image. It goes against young earth theory. In fact it makes impossible a sizeable amount of the old testament. That perhaps explains many of your beliefs. I would agree, which is why I would say the possibility of your god existing is practically zero rather than totally zero. Right this moment I cannot prove that there are not 3 pigs in an oxygen bubble on the far side of the moon dancing to the Macarena. I can say that it's so improbably to be practically impossible though. However I would agree that it must be an opinion and not a fact, the same as a belief in any god.

It's a shame that the British monarchy have lay rest to some of their powers. "Off with his head" is one that might have greeted one or two posters here.

... and as others have stated numerous times, he was never charged let alone convicted. Perhaps a large part of the problem lies with the US justice system whereby he never saw his day in court for an offense that you seem to believe he was 100% guilty of? Most of the world live in an era where you are innocent until proven guilty. Imagine what a world it would be if it were the other way around. Again, as many others have stated, the chap with the mouth is very much entitled to his opinion, but to voice it so publicly during the ceremony of his mother's death (the Queen no less) showed that he has zero class. He insulted the memory of the Queen to get his moment in the spotlight. Scum.

Wrong and wrong. If only you had.

You might want to re-read what I wrote after setting aside any preconception. You or anyone else can believe whatever you like. Once you start making legislation based on some of those beliefs or teaching that as fact as part of a national curriculum... the problem begins.

The weight of the evidence to support the theory of evolution is rather staggering. Interesting that you use the term "unprovable". Perhaps to try and put it on the same level as the belief in a god?

I would suggest that self awareness, coupled with intelligence would allow you to make better choices. Better choices = more chance of reproducing and more chance of longevity. Quantum theory might be leading us down the path to believe that there is no such thing as free will. The jury's out on that one at the moment. I think your definition of a force is different than mine, but natural selection is very well defined. Even if you don't agree with it, I'm be pretty sure you know how it is defined. The existence of natural selection can be shown to be factual regardless of the existence of your god. Probably more so than anyone can quantify or list the properties of their god. Again, why are you using the term force? A rough timeline? Somewhat over 14 billion years, less a few hundred million years when things were still a little warm and sticky. See the answer to question 6. Are you perhaps a young earth creationist whereby your timeline wavers from mine by many orders? I didn't realise we were playing a game. There are many questions to which we / I / science does not have the answers and freely admit to that fact. I find that far more admirable than any claim of a god of the gaps. "You can't explain that so it must be god" didn't cut it for me after about the age of 10. If that's the label you want to give yourself then I can run with it, but it was your label. I'll wait until I see this evidence. That's the beauty of real knowledge. As you acquire more and learn new things you can realise, and admit, where you might have been wrong in the past. It's all part of learning and I have zero problem with it.

Quite the opposite. Force nothing down their throats. It's interesting that I'm suggesting that unprovable beliefs should not be taught as fact and you're spinning that as me forcing my beliefs on others. Do you work in marketing?