Search results

These are the topics we covered in Public Law

LOL who have you been talking to SPIES... EVERYWHERE! *runs around frantically* No-one will ever have my prized exam notes! You'll have to pry them from my cold dead hand! I suppose that means as soon as I finish an exam

--------------------------- HEY!

What the hell? Starting from when? That certainly wasn't the case last year

Well 'often' being the operative word, 'big' being the other Yes maqu - if you have the marks I'm sure that'd raise the bar Might I also add that if somehow USyd's ancient quadrangle building was demolished, their edge in prestige may very well go down with it ;)

My two cents: (a) I would say that UNSW law is just as good as USyd law, and UNSW has ALL small group teaching for law, rather than the lecture/tutorial system that is widely used for USyd undergraduate studies. You would also come out with a greater social understanding of the law. (b)...

It may be dismissed properly, and logically, or it may not be dismissed validly. But if no-one gives any actual reasons for the existence of God, there really is nothing to dismiss is there? The evidence must be put to the light of logic, reason and argument. That, in principle, is not...

Well that's fine but your opinion isn't very helpful without reasons

No, it isn't. You can't say, "oh God exists because I believe he exists." The claim is either true or false.

God either exists or he doesn't exist. Whether you believe it or not. It's not subjective. Religions are right or wrong. True or false. I'm getting quite annoyed at all this subjective stuff

Yes, I think we've made that point about fifty times in this thread. You can't use the Bible to prove the existence of God. Originally Posted by MoonlightSonata: Stop using the Bible! [Anyone frustrated with Bible-quoters can quote this passage to stop people from irrelevantly talking...

The Bible has nothing to do with this thread!

Don't worry, there are no stupid questions here, just stupid people

Aye... it forces judges to either go way to easy or way to hard This is the problem when politicians have no idea of the inner workings of the legal system Brogden is my MP :(

Doesn't that sound (a) stupid, (b) cruel and (c) pointless?

Claim: The Bible's accuracy on various scientific and historical points shows its overall accuracy. Response: 1. The accuracy of the Bible is not remarkable. All of its accurate points can be explained by simple observation of nature or by selective interpretation of scriptures. 2...

dark_angel, I am tempted to use this 'ignore list' feature Instead I will answer you simply: 1. That is no better evidence than the Bible: reason for that has been discussed many times before. 2. Simply because we can't show god does not exist, is not a good reason for believing that he...

Kindly explain to me how that is evidence.

Good, because this post of yours sounded awfully like that: ----------------------------------------------- This is very different to "if you can't prove he does not exist, then isnt that a valid reason to beleive in an omnibenevolent, omnipresent god" as you previously stated.

Ah so now we come to it. You can't prove either way, good. So the basis for your belief in God is...? This is getting pretty tiring now, seeing as all believers have come to the same conclusion: I can't prove that God exists, but I still believe in God for "personal reasons" (reasons to...