You don't know what heat is until you've lain immobile on your bed in a hostal in Avila in the middle of August with the sun shining straight through the window, the temperature showing 47 celsius, your head throbbing and your throat parched because of all the dodgy brandy you drank the night before. That is heat. And that is a hangover. Sometimes I am glad I am older than I once was.
In October I am going to the Danakil Depression, in Ethiopia. It is known as "the cruellest place on earth", for many reasons - deadly volcanic activity, utterly sterile salt deserts - - but also the infernal heat.
There are many months when it doesn't ever dip below 40C. It can easily reach 50C or more. Maybe 55C.
Camden right now is good training.
I will never go to the Danakil Depression in Ethiopia.
Judging by this snippet from Wikivoyage, neither will I: "The people of this region have always had a bad reputation for being hostile rather than welcoming to outsiders. Their fearsome curved knife, the jile, was used to castrate infrequent visitors as late as the 1930s."
You don't know what heat is until you've lain immobile on your bed in a hostal in Avila in the middle of August with the sun shining straight through the window, the temperature showing 47 celsius, your head throbbing and your throat parched because of all the dodgy brandy you drank the night before. That is heat. And that is a hangover. Sometimes I am glad I am older than I once was.
I thought Avila was quite spooky - was there during the St. Theresa (!) festivals and all those processions, etc.
You don't know what heat is until you've lain immobile on your bed in a hostal in Avila in the middle of August with the sun shining straight through the window, the temperature showing 47 celsius, your head throbbing and your throat parched because of all the dodgy brandy you drank the night before. That is heat. And that is a hangover. Sometimes I am glad I am older than I once was.
In October I am going to the Danakil Depression, in Ethiopia. It is known as "the cruellest place on earth", for many reasons - deadly volcanic activity, utterly sterile salt deserts - - but also the infernal heat.
There are many months when it doesn't ever dip below 40C. It can easily reach 50C or more. Maybe 55C.
Camden right now is good training.
I will never go to the Danakil Depression in Ethiopia.
It's not called a Depression for nothing, clearly.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
I don't think that necessarily follows. An infinity of universes can still only include possible things.
What's impossible about God?
By which I mean, what prevents God from existing, eg in another universe whose properties we cannot observe? If nothing prevents this (which is what we have to conclude), and there exist infinite universes (because what limits the number?), then not only does God exist in an infinity of universes, but also, within that infinity, there are universes in which God exists in that universe as well as in all the others.
Obviously I don't really believe all this crap, but it isn't any worse crap than blind scientism.
What would prevent an infinity of possible Gods? And in that case, what would prevent a truly omnipotent such God with a desire and will to subjugate all universes to His will from existing? And therefore reaching out and conquering all universes, including our own, to a slavery of darkness and pain?
It would appear that such a being doesn't exist - but why not? What, in the line of reasoning that led to the conclusion that there could be a God that existed in all universes, would preclude it?
It is not possible to prove the absence of something, such as that there is no God.
But atheists have a confidence or belief that there is no God. One might say atheists have faith in the theory that there is no God.
Nope, incorrect. All multiverses stem from the initial point of as perceived from your own multiverse. There cannot be a creator in one and not in others. All things stem from one point of infinite density and infinite energy.
This belief multiverses, you're expressing faith either way.
The physics of multiverses is reasonably understood. It's science, not faith.
So in that case there must either be evidence available that other universes exist, or an acceptance that this is impossible to provide, in which case the "understanding" that they do is based on reasoning and not evidence.
How is that different from religious faith?
Not at all. You can't see mathematics but it's a truth. There is mathematical evidence of the possibility of multiverses, there is no mathematical evidence of the possibility of God. Nor could there be.
Newton thought ntion of god (or of a god) in the universe?
Because theying it for a time.
For what it's worth, I think it's nonsense but all the same, unless disproved then the possibility must be admitted.
The philosopher and mathematician Wittgenstein was quite possibly the cleverest man who ever lived. Wittgenstein believed in God, albeit in a very unique, and ascetic way.
If forced to choose, I'd take Wittgenstein over "dyedwoolie" of PB.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
My friend Giles had his room at Trinity. Many good evenings were had there.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"
I think Wittgenstein was speaking about himself. Had he been an artist, a poet perhaps, he could have spoken about subjective experiences and feelings but he recognised that a) they were not explicable in scientific, mathematical or logical language and b) they were the most important things. It took him two lifetimes to realise this.
God probably doesn't exist, "God" as worshipped by ~ 3.6 billion Abrahamists almost certainly doesn't. Still, some of the architecture the concept has inspired is nice enough.
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
I don't think that necessarily follows. An infinity of universes can still only include possible things.
What's impossible about God?
By which I mean, what prevents God from existing, eg in another universe whose properties we cannot observe? If nothing prevents this (which is what we have to conclude), and there exist infinite universes (because what limits the number?), then not only does God exist in an infinity of universes, but also, within that infinity, there are universes in which God exists in that universe as well as in all the others.
Obviously I don't really believe all this crap, but it isn't any worse crap than blind scientism.
What would prevent an infinity of possible Gods? And in that case, what would prevent a truly omnipotent such God with a desire and will to subjugate all universes to His will from existing? And therefore reaching out and conquering all universes, including our own, to a slavery of darkness and pain?
It would appear that such a being doesn't exist - but why not? What, in the line of reasoning that led to the conclusion that there could be a God that existed in all universes, would preclude it?
It is not possible to prove the absence of something, such as that there is no God.
But atheists have a confidence or belief that there is no God. One might say atheists have faith in the theory that there is no God.
Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
That moment when PB tries to prove, or disprove, the existence of God.
Guys, I have a sense we might be over-reaching.
This links back to whether the national anthem should refer to the monarchy and/or God. My suggestion was to change the monarchy to the country and to change God to Faith.
The debate is whether faith includes the infidels who are atheists or agnostics.
That moment when PB tries to prove, or disprove, the existence of God.
Guys, I have a sense we might be over-reaching.
This links back to whether the national anthem should refer to the monarchy and/or God. My suggestion was to change the monarchy to the country and to change God to Faith.
The debate is whether faith includes the infidels who are atheists or agnostics.
Atheism is either a faith or at the very least faith-like, as (notwithstanding Douglas Adams) the existence of God is neither provable nor disprovable.
God probably doesn't exist, "God" as worshipped by ~ 3.6 billion Abrahamists almost certainly doesn't. Still, some of the architecture the concept has inspired is nice enough.
This sounds like "my God is bigger than your God."
You don't know what heat is until you've lain immobile on your bed in a hostal in Avila in the middle of August with the sun shining straight through the window, the temperature showing 47 celsius, your head throbbing and your throat parched because of all the dodgy brandy you drank the night before. That is heat. And that is a hangover. Sometimes I am glad I am older than I once was.
I thought Avila was quite spooky - was there during the St. Theresa (!) festivals and all those processions, etc.
I haven't been there for years, but it used to be a great little town. Very, very catholic; very, very Castillian; very, very medieval; and very close to the Sierra de Gredos. A great place to spend a few days. I can imagine the Santa Theresa stuff, but was never there at that time of the year.
You don't know what heat is until you've lain immobile on your bed in a hostal in Avila in the middle of August with the sun shining straight through the window, the temperature showing 47 celsius, your head throbbing and your throat parched because of all the dodgy brandy you drank the night before. That is heat. And that is a hangover. Sometimes I am glad I am older than I once was.
In October I am going to the Danakil Depression, in Ethiopia. It is known as "the cruellest place on earth", for many reasons - deadly volcanic activity, utterly sterile salt deserts - - but also the infernal heat.
There are many months when it doesn't ever dip below 40C. It can easily reach 50C or more. Maybe 55C.
Camden right now is good training.
I will never go to the Danakil Depression in Ethiopia.
Judging by this snippet from Wikivoyage, neither will I: "The people of this region have always had a bad reputation for being hostile rather than welcoming to outsiders. Their fearsome curved knife, the jile, was used to castrate infrequent visitors as late as the 1930s."
Good luck SeanT!
Why only infrequent visitors? What did they do to frequent visitors?
Judging by this snippet from Wikivoyage, neither will I: "The people of this region have always had a bad reputation for being hostile rather than welcoming to outsiders. Their fearsome curved knife, the jile, was used to castrate infrequent visitors as late as the 1930s."
Crikes, so you need to make sure you go frequently.
God probably doesn't exist, "God" as worshipped by ~ 3.6 billion Abrahamists almost certainly doesn't. Still, some of the architecture the concept has inspired is nice enough.
This sounds like "my God is bigger than your God."
Some gods are bigger than others Some gods are bigger than others Some gods' mothers are bigger than other gods' mothers.
You don't know what heat is until you've lain immobile on your bed in a hostal in Avila in the middle of August with the sun shining straight through the window, the temperature showing 47 celsius, your head throbbing and your throat parched because of all the dodgy brandy you drank the night before. That is heat. And that is a hangover. Sometimes I am glad I am older than I once was.
In October I am going to the Danakil Depression, in Ethiopia. It is known as "the cruellest place on earth", for many reasons - deadly volcanic activity, utterly sterile salt deserts - - but also the infernal heat.
There are many months when it doesn't ever dip below 40C. It can easily reach 50C or more. Maybe 55C.
Camden right now is good training.
I will never go to the Danakil Depression in Ethiopia.
Judging by this snippet from Wikivoyage, neither will I: "The people of this region have always had a bad reputation for being hostile rather than welcoming to outsiders. Their fearsome curved knife, the jile, was used to castrate infrequent visitors as late as the 1930s."
Good luck SeanT!
Why only infrequent visitors? What did they do to frequent visitors?
Their treatment of infrequent visitors ensured there were no frequent visitors.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
I don't think that necessarily follows. An infinity of universes can still only include possible things.
What's impossible about God?
By which I mean, what prevents God from existing, eg in another universe whose properties we cannot observe? If nothing prevents this (which is what we have to conclude), and there exist infinite universes (because what limits the number?), then not only does God exist in an infinity of universes, but also, within that infinity, there are universes in which God exists in that universe as well as in all the others.
Obviously I don't really believe all this crap, but it isn't any worse crap than blind scientism.
What would prevent an infinity of possible Gods? And in that case, what would prevent a truly omnipotent such God with a desire and will to subjugate all universes to His will from existing? And therefore reaching out and conquering all universes, including our own, to a slavery of darkness and pain?
It would appear that such a being doesn't exist - but why not? What, in the line of reasoning that led to the conclusion that there could be a God that existed in all universes, would preclude it?
It is not possible to prove the absence of something, such as that there is no God.
But atheists have a confidence or belief that there is no God. One might say atheists have faith in the theory that there is no God.
It is possible to prove that a concept is self contradictory and therefore doesn't refer to something that exists. That is the case with the traditional concept of "God".
That moment when PB tries to prove, or disprove, the existence of God.
Guys, I have a sense we might be over-reaching.
This links back to whether the national anthem should refer to the monarchy and/or God. My suggestion was to change the monarchy to the country and to change God to Faith.
The debate is whether faith includes the infidels who are atheists or agnostics.
Atheism is either a faith or at the very least faith-like, as (notwithstanding Douglas Adams) the existence of God is neither provable nor disprovable.
Agnosticism isn't.
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god. It's not faith-like. It is far broader than the concept of atheism which argues actively against the existence of God.
An infant, or someone who grew up without ever hearing about any religion, would be an atheist. They lack faith. Atheism in the sense of "I have considered the matter and decided there is no god" is merely a subset of atheism.
It was set on the moon and near-Earth space, thus the title.
"A climactic battle between three Federation cruisers and the fortified mining installation ("Project Thor") is played out near Mount Pico close to the lunar observatory. ... The weapon developed in the story by Earth, which uses an electromagnet-propelled bayonet of liquid metal, is said to have inspired DARPA to develop a weapon along the same lines."
It is possible to prove that a concept is self contradictory and therefore doesn't refer to something that exists. That is the case with the traditional concept of "God".
The traditional concept of God is not self-contradictory.
No. If you read the discussion here, you must know how much scorn was poured on the idea that this number of empty luxury flats would be available locally to rehouse those who lost their homes in the Grenfell Tower. You can be as abusive as you like, but that's a fact.
No, it's not a fact, it's complete nonsense. Much scorn was correctly poured on the notion that there was any national emergency requiring the requisitioning of private property in order to house less than a hundred families in a city of 8.5 million, and on the notion that there are lots of properties being deliberately kept empty in London. I was one of those pouring the scorn.
You were mistaken on the latter point. In 2016 around 20,000 homes in London were unoccupied for more than six months, and the worst borough, accounting for around 1400, was Kensington and Chelsea. (Source, source.) And that is not counting properties that are occupied for say a weekend or two every three months.
The Daily Telegraph reports that the number of empty properties in Britain as a whole is at its highest for 20 years. The figure, which includes second homes and properties that are "awaiting" tenants or owners, as well as properties that are deliberately left empty, doubled from 800,000 in 1996 to 1.4 million in 2014.
There is no "need" to build lots of new houses. That's propaganda coming from banks and builders.
Mrs C, sounds like a good old-fashioned rail gun. Not that I've been developing one of those...
*hums innocently*
Mr. Urquhart, as someone with some savings and **** all income, I find it utterly baffling. Someone I know who used to work at a bank said they encountered a footballer and was asked to shuffle money around to feed his gambling addiction, which was costing him a fortune.
Amazing to earn so much money and still cock up your finances.
I do hope Mr. T, when not delighting young Corbynistas and trying to shag some sense into them, has squirrelled away a good portion of his obscenely enormous income somewhere safe and sensible.
God probably doesn't exist, "God" as worshipped by ~ 3.6 billion Abrahamists almost certainly doesn't. Still, some of the architecture the concept has inspired is nice enough.
This sounds like "my God is bigger than your God."
Some gods are bigger than others Some gods are bigger than others Some gods' mothers are bigger than other gods' mothers.
Incidentally, as there is more proof of Morris Dancer than God, I hereby offer myself for the position of Supreme Ruler of the Universe and invite the incumbent to disagree.
If no such disagreement is forthcoming it shall be deemed either that the incumbent does not exist, and there is therefore a vacancy, or he does but agrees I would do a better job.
You don't know what heat is until you've lain immobile on your bed in a hostal in Avila in the middle of August with the sun shining straight through the window, the temperature showing 47 celsius, your head throbbing and your throat parched because of all the dodgy brandy you drank the night before. That is heat. And that is a hangover. Sometimes I am glad I am older than I once was.
In October I am going to the Danakil Depression, in Ethiopia. It is known as "the cruellest place on earth", for many reasons - deadly volcanic activity, utterly sterile salt deserts - - but also the infernal heat.
There are many months when it doesn't ever dip below 40C. It can easily reach 50C or more. Maybe 55C.
Camden right now is good training.
Might be too late - but if you fly Ethiopian airlines (direct from Heathrow) then internal flights are much cheaper.
Incidentally, as there is more proof of Morris Dancer than God, I hereby offer myself for the position of Supreme Ruler of the Universe and invite the incumbent to disagree.
If no such disagreement is forthcoming it shall be deemed either that the incumbent does not exist, and there is therefore a vacancy, or he does but agrees I would do a better job.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
I don't think that necessarily follows. An infinity of universes can still only include possible things.
What's impossible about God?
By which I mean, what prevents God from existing, eg in another universe whose properties we cannot observe? If nothing prevents this (which is what we have to conclude), and there exist infinite universes (because what limits the number?), then not only does God exist in an infinity of universes, but also, within that infinity, there are universes in which God exists in that universe as well as in all the others.
Obviously I don't really believe all this crap, but it isn't any worse crap than blind scientism.
What would prevent an infinity of possible Gods? And in that case, what would prevent a truly omnipotent such God with a desire and will to subjugate all universes to His will from existing? And therefore reaching out and conquering all universes, including our own, to a slavery of darkness and pain?
It would appear that such a being doesn't exist - but why not? What, in the line of reasoning that led to the conclusion that there could be a God that existed in all universes, would preclude it?
It is not possible to prove the absence of something, such as that there is no God.
I can prove the absence of perfect squares between 10 and 15.
Incidentally, as there is more proof of Morris Dancer than God, I hereby offer myself for the position of Supreme Ruler of the Universe and invite the incumbent to disagree.
If no such disagreement is forthcoming it shall be deemed either that the incumbent does not exist, and there is therefore a vacancy, or he does but agrees I would do a better job.
I can prove the absence of perfect squares between 10 and 15.
Various proofs that every odd number is prime :
Mathematician: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime. The result follows by induction." Physicist: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error..." Engineer: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime..." Computer programmer: "2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, ..." Economist: "2 is prime, 4 is prime, 6 is prime, 8 is prime..."
You don't know what heat is until you've lain immobile on your bed in a hostal in Avila in the middle of August with the sun shining straight through the window, the temperature showing 47 celsius, your head throbbing and your throat parched because of all the dodgy brandy you drank the night before. That is heat. And that is a hangover. Sometimes I am glad I am older than I once was.
In the late 80s I had the dubious pleasure of working in the northern part of the Rub al Khali - the Empty Quarter - on the border between Abu Dhabi and Saudi. The temperature was regularly in the mid 50s C and we had to work almost continuously in BA sets as we were drilling in very high H2S concentrations. They eventually pulled the plug on day time drilling after 2 colleagues had heart attacks - one of them didn't survive.
We were paid the princely sum of £42 a day for the pleasure working 6 weeks on 2 weeks off.
It is possible to prove that a concept is self contradictory and therefore doesn't refer to something that exists. That is the case with the traditional concept of "God".
The traditional concept of God is not self-contradictory.
Your belief of the concept of God might be.
I don't have a "belief" of the concept of God.
I have a clear recollection of the answer to Catechism Question 27 "What is God?".
"God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself and is infinite in all perfections".
The reason I remember it with such clarity after 67 years (I was seven years old when I learned it) is because of the leather strap that the nuns wielded as a memory aid.
One constant of all universes with or without God is that in them Richard Tyndall will be rude to a poster who is not arguing with him.
How have I been rude? Are you so unsure of your faith that you can't deal with a little bit of righteous scorn?
Edit
Just to add, you should no more be protected from criticism and ridicule for your religious views than anyone should for their political views. Belief in the monotheistic gods is very much a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies. It is irrational, divisive and dangerous. Much like many political beliefs.
It is possible to prove that a concept is self contradictory and therefore doesn't refer to something that exists. That is the case with the traditional concept of "God".
The traditional concept of God is not self-contradictory.
Your belief of the concept of God might be.
I don't have a "belief" of the concept of God.
I have a clear recollection of the answer to Catechism Question 27 "What is God?".
"God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself and is infinite in all perfections".
The reason I remember it with such clarity after 67 years (I was seven years old when I learned it) is because of the leather strap that the nuns wielded as a memory aid.
Reminds me of a story Dave Allen used to relate about his first day at school with the nuns. As he arrived at the front door a terrifying nun screamed at him "Now are you going to be a good little boy?" He looked past her and hanging on the wall was a bloke nailed to two planks of wood. He thought "You're bloody right I'm going to be a good little boy..."
It is possible to prove that a concept is self contradictory and therefore doesn't refer to something that exists. That is the case with the traditional concept of "God".
The traditional concept of God is not self-contradictory.
Your belief of the concept of God might be.
I don't have a "belief" of the concept of God.
I have a clear recollection of the answer to Catechism Question 27 "What is God?".
"God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself and is infinite in all perfections".
The reason I remember it with such clarity after 67 years (I was seven years old when I learned it) is because of the leather strap that the nuns wielded as a memory aid.
Sorry to hear that. My point is strengthened by your response though, as it shows why you have such a biased view of God from your perspective.
I can prove the absence of perfect squares between 10 and 15.
Various proofs that every odd number is prime :
Mathematician: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime. The result follows by induction." Physicist: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error..." Engineer: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime..." Computer programmer: "2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, ..." Economist: "2 is prime, 4 is prime, 6 is prime, 8 is prime..."
Hmm. I don't think a mathematician would make a mistake like that.
But there is a perfectly valid proof that every number is interesting.
Homes are left empty for all sorts of reasons - awaiting probate, awaiting a sale, awaiting refurbishment, planning problems. 20,000 out of 3.3 million households is not actually that many. It's a myth that there is some great scandal here.
I can prove the absence of perfect squares between 10 and 15.
Various proofs that every odd number is prime :
Mathematician: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime. The result follows by induction." Physicist: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error..." Engineer: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime..." Computer programmer: "2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, ..." Economist: "2 is prime, 4 is prime, 6 is prime, 8 is prime..."
Hmm. I don't think a mathematician would make a mistake like that.
But there is a perfectly valid proof that every number is interesting.
The Hardy-Ramanujan Number (1729)
"I remember once going to see him when he was ill at Putney. I had ridden in taxi cab number 1729 and remarked that the number seemed to me rather a dull one, and that I hoped it was not an unfavorable omen. "No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." "
What has happened to the rage march. Not seen any coverage. Has it sunk without trace
Some in twitter claiming hundreds more will join after work and they are planning to demonstrate outside parliament at 6 I believe. It's been quite pathetic as seen by the placards written on torn up bits of cardboard box. Including the awesome 'bun the tories'
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.
I know. But it would basically make it much, much harder for the government to change EU laws - it would all have to be done by individual act of Parliament, wouldn't it? It would also surely mean UK courts continuing to refer cases to the ECJ for clarification (though I suspect that might happen anyway). A total clusterfuck, in other words.
Blocking the GR bill doesn't block Brexit though. As I understand it A50 is set to disapply the treaties in 2019. The repeal of the 1972 Act and the GR bill give recognition to that in domestic law. Once were are out what would be the pont of blocking it?
The legal likelihood is that it is not revocable, but even if it were, who would do it, and what on earth would happen next? Both sides would be well along the route of dismantling things, companies would be well advanced in moving their operations around, etc etc.
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.
Not if we revoke our article 50 letter.
The problem is the article says we leave automatically two years after the formal notification of the intention to leave. That notification has been given. There's no indication in the treaty that a revocation would make any difference.
@ProfChalmers: If "Scots have power to block Brexit" were true, Brexit would be dead. Brexit is not (sadly) dead.
They would have the power to get huge concessions from Westminster or to ensure that the UK remain bound by EU laws until individual acts of Parliament changed them.
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.
Not if we revoke our article 50 letter.
The problem is the article says we leave automatically two years after the formal notification of the intention to leave. That notification has been given. There's no indication in the treaty that a revocation would make any difference.
Yeah it's like resigning with 30 days notice at work. You can't independently revoke that resignation on day 29 without your employers agreement.
I know. But it would basically make it much, much harder for the government to change EU laws - it would all have to be done by individual act of Parliament, wouldn't it? It would also surely mean UK courts continuing to refer cases to the ECJ for clarification (though I suspect that might happen anyway). A total clusterfuck, in other words.
It would require a parliamentary majority to vote in an emergency act to fix the mess and remove the Scottish veto, and the Lords to consent to that. I think that in practice that would happen - it would be such a chaotic mess otherwise that any party playing silly games would be committing political suicide.
Edit: Does anyone have a link to what was actually said?
Edit 2: Also, can't the government simply get round it by putting in a clause in the Repeal Bill saying the Scots have to get stuffed? (They might use slightly different language, of course)
I can prove the absence of perfect squares between 10 and 15.
Various proofs that every odd number is prime :
Mathematician: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime. The result follows by induction." Physicist: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error..." Engineer: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime..." Computer programmer: "2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, ..." Economist: "2 is prime, 4 is prime, 6 is prime, 8 is prime..."
Hmm. I don't think a mathematician would make a mistake like that.
But there is a perfectly valid proof that every number is interesting.
Yes, if there is at least one uninteresting number then the first uninteresting number, by virtue of being the first uninteresting number, would be interesting.
I don't think that necessarily follows. An infinity of universes can still only include possible things.
What's impossible about God?
By which I mean, what prevents God from existing, eg in another universe whose properties we cannot observe? If nothing prevents this (which is what we have to conclude), and there exist infinite universes (because what limits the number?), then not only does God exist in an infinity of universes, but also, within that infinity, there are universes in which God exists in that universe as well as in all the others.
Obviously I don't really believe all this crap, but it isn't any worse crap than blind scientism.
What would prevent an infinity of possible Gods? And in that case, what would prevent a truly omnipotent such God with a desire and will to subjugate all universes to His will from existing? And therefore reaching out and conquering all universes, including our own, to a slavery of darkness and pain?
It would appear that such a being doesn't exist - but why not? What, in the line of reasoning that led to the conclusion that there could be a God that existed in all universes, would preclude it?
It is not possible to prove the absence of something, such as that there is no God.
But atheists have a confidence or belief that there is no God. One might say atheists have faith in the theory that there is no God.
Inasmuch as I have "faith" that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or that there is no Theo, the psychic purple teapot-loving octopoid of Kepler-91-b from earlier. Or in anything for which there is no evidence provided (especially anything for which there has been huge numbers of arguments presented in that things existence but with a complete lack of anything resembling evidence).
It's a fairly funny way to define "faith".
It's not possible to prove the absence of a Demon of Ultimate Power ruling over all Universes, either, but I don't believe in that being's existence, either.
It's almost as if you're reaching to justify your own faith by trying to "prove" that everyone has "faith" in something.
It wouldn't be power to block Brexit, but to screw it up big-time. We'd still leave at the end of the Article 50 timetable.
Not if we revoke our article 50 letter.
The problem is the article says we leave automatically two years after the formal notification of the intention to leave. That notification has been given. There's no indication in the treaty that a revocation would make any difference.
Yeah it's like resigning with 30 days notice at work. You can't independently revoke that resignation on day 29 without your employers agreement.
The only legally based argument I've seen to the contrary is based on the Vienna Convention on treaties. But that explicitly says its provisions are not to prejudice the relevant rules of international organisations. So I don't see how anything in the Vienna Convention can prevail against the explicit provision in Article 50.
The legal likelihood is that it is not revocable, but even if it were, who would do it, and what on earth would happen next? Both sides would be well along the route of dismantling things, companies would be well advanced in moving their operations around, etc etc.
The UK and the EU would not be the first couple that announced they were planning to get divorced, then decided stay married.
I can prove the absence of perfect squares between 10 and 15.
Various proofs that every odd number is prime :
Mathematician: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime. The result follows by induction." Physicist: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error..." Engineer: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime..." Computer programmer: "2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, ..." Economist: "2 is prime, 4 is prime, 6 is prime, 8 is prime..."
Hmm. I don't think a mathematician would make a mistake like that.
But there is a perfectly valid proof that every number is interesting.
Yes, if there is at least one uninteresting number then the first uninteresting number, by virtue of being the first uninteresting number, would be interesting.
Comments
Good luck SeanT!
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/877543423389126657
But atheists have a confidence or belief that there is no God. One might say atheists have faith in the theory that there is no God.
I think Wittgenstein was speaking about himself. Had he been an artist, a poet perhaps, he could have spoken about subjective experiences and feelings but he recognised that a) they were not explicable in scientific, mathematical or logical language and b) they were the most important things. It took him two lifetimes to realise this.
Still, some of the architecture the concept has inspired is nice enough.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
The debate is whether faith includes the infidels who are atheists or agnostics.
Agnosticism isn't.
Mr. Pulpstar, oh, aye. Churches look nice and York Minster is magnificent.
The Islamic State, on the other hand...
1st Party: This is protected by treaty
2nd Party: I'm here. Possession is 9/10ths of the Law
3rd Party: Shut up and get lost. My guns are bigger than your guns.
2nd Party: Wanna bet?
.... I will let you paint the rest in
Edit: I see @Charles got there first.
Some gods are bigger than others
Some gods' mothers are bigger than other gods' mothers.
The last lot of visitors were the Japanese army in WW2, so understandable.
God on the 2017 election: Well, I wasn't expecting that. LibDems to rebound
However, space wars would be rather horrendous.
An infant, or someone who grew up without ever hearing about any religion, would be an atheist. They lack faith. Atheism in the sense of "I have considered the matter and decided there is no god" is merely a subset of atheism.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/gb/wimbledon/sw19-4/weather-forecast/323341
"A climactic battle between three Federation cruisers and the fortified mining installation ("Project Thor") is played out near Mount Pico close to the lunar observatory.
...
The weapon developed in the story by Earth, which uses an electromagnet-propelled bayonet of liquid metal, is said to have inspired DARPA to develop a weapon along the same lines."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthlight
The traditional concept of God is not self-contradictory.
Your belief of the concept of God might be.
The Daily Telegraph reports that the number of empty properties in Britain as a whole is at its highest for 20 years. The figure, which includes second homes and properties that are "awaiting" tenants or owners, as well as properties that are deliberately left empty, doubled from 800,000 in 1996 to 1.4 million in 2014.
There is no "need" to build lots of new houses. That's propaganda coming from banks and builders.
*hums innocently*
Mr. Urquhart, as someone with some savings and **** all income, I find it utterly baffling. Someone I know who used to work at a bank said they encountered a footballer and was asked to shuffle money around to feed his gambling addiction, which was costing him a fortune.
Amazing to earn so much money and still cock up your finances.
I do hope Mr. T, when not delighting young Corbynistas and trying to shag some sense into them, has squirrelled away a good portion of his obscenely enormous income somewhere safe and sensible.
[Isn't Johnny Depp also in some difficulty?]
Kinnock's God is an atheist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRwXrcz-F9M
If no such disagreement is forthcoming it shall be deemed either that the incumbent does not exist, and there is therefore a vacancy, or he does but agrees I would do a better job.
Mathematician: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime. The result follows by induction."
Physicist: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error..."
Engineer: "3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime..."
Computer programmer: "2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, ..."
Economist: "2 is prime, 4 is prime, 6 is prime, 8 is prime..."
We were paid the princely sum of £42 a day for the pleasure working 6 weeks on 2 weeks off.
I have a clear recollection of the answer to Catechism Question 27 "What is God?".
"God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of himself and is infinite in all perfections".
The reason I remember it with such clarity after 67 years (I was seven years old when I learned it) is because of the leather strap that the nuns wielded as a memory aid.
"the real part of any non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function is ½"
And if you need a warm-up, Goldbach's Conjecture is still not sorted out either
"Every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes"
Possibly Amazing Betting PostLadbrokes.
To Be Classified, Perez, Bottas, Vettel at 5, 7 and 8 respectively.
I think they just got the Not To Be Classified, and Classified odds mixed up.
I believe every one of those drivers has finished every race to date.
Edit
Just to add, you should no more be protected from criticism and ridicule for your religious views than anyone should for their political views. Belief in the monotheistic gods is very much a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies. It is irrational, divisive and dangerous. Much like many political beliefs.
[I'm seriously perplexed by those odds. Searched and can't find anything wonky, I just think they're... wrong].
Sorry to hear that. My point is strengthened by your response though, as it shows why you have such a biased view of God from your perspective.
But there is a perfectly valid proof that every number is interesting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/almost-no-evidence-london-homes-owned-foreign-buyers-left-empty/
Homes are left empty for all sorts of reasons - awaiting probate, awaiting a sale, awaiting refurbishment, planning problems. 20,000 out of 3.3 million households is not actually that many. It's a myth that there is some great scandal here.
"I remember once going to see him when he was ill at Putney. I had ridden in taxi cab number 1729 and remarked that the number seemed to me rather a dull one, and that I hoped it was not an unfavorable omen. "No," he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." "
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1729_(number)
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/877553940908449793
The exact odds for Not to be Classified now available for To be Classified.
....
All hail Morris, Supreme Ruler of the Universe!
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, I am going to wait and see if that happens. I hope not. But suspect so.
Perhaps there were millions of other people today who would like to have gone, but instead had to be on the Day of Wage.
I don't see how the repeal bill can be a Scottish item mind...
He sounds like a potential Prime Minister. Who'd have thought.......
Edit: Does anyone have a link to what was actually said?
Edit 2: Also, can't the government simply get round it by putting in a clause in the Repeal Bill saying the Scots have to get stuffed? (They might use slightly different language, of course)
Or that there is no Theo, the psychic purple teapot-loving octopoid of Kepler-91-b from earlier.
Or in anything for which there is no evidence provided (especially anything for which there has been huge numbers of arguments presented in that things existence but with a complete lack of anything resembling evidence).
It's a fairly funny way to define "faith".
It's not possible to prove the absence of a Demon of Ultimate Power ruling over all Universes, either, but I don't believe in that being's existence, either.
It's almost as if you're reaching to justify your own faith by trying to "prove" that everyone has "faith" in something.
Listen to the 5.00pm News. It's pitiful