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.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses, you're expressing faith either way.
wonder if the Germans are storing up problems for the next decade...
"Up to three quarters of Germany’s refugees will still be unemployed in five years’ time, according to a government minister, in a stark admission of the challenges the country faces in integrating its huge migrant population.
Aydan Özoğuz, commissioner for integration, refugees and integration, told the Financial Times that only a quarter to a third of the newcomers would enter the labour market over the next five years, and “for many others we will need up to 10”.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
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.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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.
BBC: evil, baby-eating government to rehouse Grenfell survivors in £1.5 million apartments in the heart of Kensington, with 24-hour concierge and own cinema.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
That's even more unlikely than your previous suggestion.
What about one where HMG is one of national unity formed of all the politicalbetting.com regulars as a Government-of-all-the-talents, and Sean Thomas is Prime Minister?
So apparently the DUP's price for their support is around £2bn of extra spending in Northern Ireland. Pro rata, that would amount to somewhere around £140bn extra spending across the UK as a whole...
wonder if the Germans are storing up problems for the next decade...
"Up to three quarters of Germany’s refugees will still be unemployed in five years’ time, according to a government minister, in a stark admission of the challenges the country faces in integrating its huge migrant population.
Aydan Özoğuz, commissioner for integration, refugees and integration, told the Financial Times that only a quarter to a third of the newcomers would enter the labour market over the next five years, and “for many others we will need up to 10”.
What could be problematic about taking 2 million people who don't speak your language, with generally poor education levels and few skills relevant to your high tech / high skilled economy.
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.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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.
There are also the Anthropic Principles - both Strong and Weak.
@Vinny_LBC: Latest: 68 apartments in luxury block near site of #GrenfellTower acquired to house fire survivors. Prices start at £1.5 million
Not the full story.
It's the social housing allocation from the St. Edwards development at 375 Kensington High Street.
The Corporation of London is buying them, and letting RBKC use them for social housing. Berkeley & the Pru (who own St. Edwards) have sold the flats at cost price - around £10 million - so very well done to them
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
BBC: evil, baby-eating government to rehouse Grenfell survivors in £1.5 million apartments in the heart of Kensington, with 24-hour concierge and own cinema.
@Vinny_LBC: Latest: 68 apartments in luxury block near site of #GrenfellTower acquired to house fire survivors. Prices start at £1.5 million
Not the full story.
It's the social housing allocation from the St. Edwards development at 375 Kensington High Street.
The Corporation of London is buying them, and let's RBKC use them for social housing. Berkeley & the Pru (who own St. Edwards) have sold the flats at cost price - around £10 million - so very well done to them
I wonder if they have to use a different entrance to the privately owned flats?
No, the new boundaries are perfectly drawn for SF.
If the number of MPs is reduced to 600, then Northern Ireland's share is reduced to 17. The boundary commission have cut Belfast from four MPs to three, by reducing it to the inner city, which is mostly Nationalist. The outskirts, which are mostly Unionist, would be shifted into neighbouring seats that are already safely Unionist.
So, Belfast would go from three Unionist, one Nationalist, to two Nationalist, one Alliance on these proposals, although I suspect that the DUP would actually win the notionally Alliance seat.
Upper Bann is also converted from a safe Unionist seat to a marginally Nationalist seat.
Pardon me for not having appreciated the distinction between apartments being "deliberately kept empty" and unoccupied apartments.
I mean, it must be so common for people to inadvertently keep luxury apartments empty at the cost of God knows how many tens of thousands a year.
I do realise the rich are different, and they routinely do things that are quite incomprehensible to the rest of us mere mortals.
You are being idiotic. Are you really so thick, or more likely blinded by class prejudice, that you don't know that new flats don''t always sell out in seconds, or that a propery can be empty because its owner has died and the executors are awaiting probate, or that a flat can be on the market for a while, or that it might be awaiting refurbishment?
@Vinny_LBC: Latest: 68 apartments in luxury block near site of #GrenfellTower acquired to house fire survivors. Prices start at £1.5 million
Not the full story.
It's the social housing allocation from the St. Edwards development at 375 Kensington High Street.
The Corporation of London is buying them, and let's RBKC use them for social housing. Berkeley & the Pru (who own St. Edwards) have sold the flats at cost price - around £10 million - so very well done to them
They'll be at the rear of the property, overlooking the bins and railway line. I suspect they won't be getting access to the swimming pool and concierge service.
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
Not nearly enough. presently the Tories have about 250/800 peers.
It's novel idea to pack the Lords after having lost an election and with no electoral mandate to govern.
So apparently the DUP's price for their support is around £2bn of extra spending in Northern Ireland. Pro rata, that would amount to somewhere around £140bn extra spending across the UK as a whole...
If that's their bottom line, then I suspect there can be no deal, except on an informal basis.
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.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
I expected a more enthusiastic response.
Well the source that told me that George wasn't standing as an MP told me a few days ago George is finished with politics.
@Vinny_LBC: Latest: 68 apartments in luxury block near site of #GrenfellTower acquired to house fire survivors. Prices start at £1.5 million
Not the full story.
It's the social housing allocation from the St. Edwards development at 375 Kensington High Street.
The Corporation of London is buying them, and let's RBKC use them for social housing. Berkeley & the Pru (who own St. Edwards) have sold the flats at cost price - around £10 million - so very well done to them
I wonder if they have to use a different entrance to the privately owned flats?
@Vinny_LBC: Latest: 68 apartments in luxury block near site of #GrenfellTower acquired to house fire survivors. Prices start at £1.5 million
Not the full story.
It's the social housing allocation from the St. Edwards development at 375 Kensington High Street.
The Corporation of London is buying them, and let's RBKC use them for social housing. Berkeley & the Pru (who own St. Edwards) have sold the flats at cost price - around £10 million - so very well done to them
I wonder if they have to use a different entrance to the privately owned flats?
It's been a while since I looked at the plans, but I think it's a different block in the complex.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
BBC: evil, baby-eating government to rehouse Grenfell survivors in £1.5 million apartments in the heart of Kensington, with 24-hour concierge and own cinema.
Good plan
Strange they didn't think of it sooner
You know finding and then arranging to buy 70 flats off a developer at cost and doing all the legal work for the purchase and leasing back to the council, perhaps you know, might take a few days.
I think anybody who has bought a house would be love to be able to complete in a week.
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.
Neither of those last 2 statements follows from the previous
Sure they do. If other universes exist what extra-universal constraint limits their number?
And if they are then everything that could happen must do so.
There's a universe in which I have a butler for example.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
I expected a more enthusiastic response.
Well the source that told me that George wasn't standing as an MP told me a few days ago George is finished with politics.
He's done his bit for party and country.
Politics is finished with him.
His Austerity measures screwed the country, and his Editorials did the same for the Tories.
BBC: evil, baby-eating government to rehouse Grenfell survivors in £1.5 million apartments in the heart of Kensington, with 24-hour concierge and own cinema.
Good plan
Strange they didn't think of it sooner
Sounds like an ideal solution - especially since it will keep the community together. Credit to the government/whoever is responsible for pulling it off assuming all goes well.
I think there (should) be 260 Brexit peers in the Lords (Con+DUP+UUP+UKIP), but 400 are technically needed for a majority. So May is 140 short.
And some of the Tory ones won't play ball.
Maybe substantial reform is necessary then?
Probably. Some won't turn up. Some won't divide on partisan lines.
Normally, only around 600-650 or so turn up, and crossbenchers/some bishops normally (eventually) do the honourable thing.
As long as the Government gets 210 or so of its own peers, the DUP/UUP/UKIP peers, and around 80-90 of the crossbenchers, and a bakers dozen of non affiliates, it should be ok.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
Will the pasty tax fiasco feature ?
It does actually.
The pasty tax, unlike the dementia tax, never cost a single Tory MP their seat.
@Vinny_LBC: Latest: 68 apartments in luxury block near site of #GrenfellTower acquired to house fire survivors. Prices start at £1.5 million
Not the full story.
It's the social housing allocation from the St. Edwards development at 375 Kensington High Street.
The Corporation of London is buying them, and letting RBKC use them for social housing. Berkeley & the Pru (who own St. Edwards) have sold the flats at cost price - around £10 million - so very well done to them
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
That's even more unlikely than your previous suggestion.
What about one where HMG is one of national unity formed of all the politicalbetting.com regulars as a Government-of-all-the-talents, and Sean Thomas is Prime Minister?
politicalbetting is a benign dictatorship, as you well know.
@Vinny_LBC: Latest: 68 apartments in luxury block near site of #GrenfellTower acquired to house fire survivors. Prices start at £1.5 million
Not the full story.
It's the social housing allocation from the St. Edwards development at 375 Kensington High Street.
The Corporation of London is buying them, and let's RBKC use them for social housing. Berkeley & the Pru (who own St. Edwards) have sold the flats at cost price - around £10 million - so very well done to them
They'll be at the rear of the property, overlooking the bins and railway line. I suspect they won't be getting access to the swimming pool and concierge service.
They will get access to the swimming pool and concierge service if they pay the service charges. But not if they don't want to.
(And, yes, the cheaper units in a development tend to be in the less attractive parts. Clearly, as well, St. Edwards do well out of this in terms of (a) completing the development faster to release development resources in the tight market (b) shifting hard to sell social units in a single transaction to reduce complexity (c) goodwill generated with key stakeholders (in particular the Corporation) by helping them out
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
Not nearly enough. presently the Tories have about 250/800 peers.
It's novel idea to pack the Lords after having lost an election and with no electoral mandate to govern.
It's not, actually. It's what Asquith proposed after losing his majority in the 1910 election.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
Will the pasty tax fiasco feature ?
It does actually.
The pasty tax, unlike the dementia tax, never cost a single Tory MP their seat.
When you think about it , May's manifesto of doom and no fun was a tribute to GO's project Brexit fear aka "how to lose a referendum against a useless opponent for dummies"
Perhaps paying attention to GO was her biggest mistake ?
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.
Your argument falls down on logical platforms. Not to get too dragged into semantics, you have not defined God firstly. If God is defined the creator of all things, it must exist prior to creation and therefore would be pertinent to any and all multiverses as all things stem from one act of creation when one believes in an artificial act of creation. If God is defined as something that exists within an individual multiverse it cannot, by definition, have made other multiverses and would be subject to the rules of that multiverse making it a creation of not the creator of that place. It would not meet the commonly understood concept of God. Reductio ad absurdum and fallacy of many questions fall down in your premise for starters.
@Vinny_LBC: Latest: 68 apartments in luxury block near site of #GrenfellTower acquired to house fire survivors. Prices start at £1.5 million
Not the full story.
It's the social housing allocation from the St. Edwards development at 375 Kensington High Street.
The Corporation of London is buying them, and let's RBKC use them for social housing. Berkeley & the Pru (who own St. Edwards) have sold the flats at cost price - around £10 million - so very well done to them
I wonder if they have to use a different entrance to the privately owned flats?
That is the case in other developments.
There were a few stories along those lines. If true (and I never saw it validated) then it's obnoxious (and unenforceable).
I have no issues with a different building or with not getting access to add-on services without payment, but if they are in the same block you can't reasonable restrict access via certain entrants.
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
Not nearly enough. presently the Tories have about 250/800 peers.
It's novel idea to pack the Lords after having lost an election and with no electoral mandate to govern.
The Lords should enjoy themselves while they can. A first term Corbyn government will scrap them.
Well the source that told me that George wasn't standing as an MP told me a few days ago George is finished with politics.
He's done his bit for party and country.
Indeed, and has got nothing but bile for rescuing both from dire straits.
Still, he's only at the start of his transition to universally-admired National Treasure. Give it ten years...
Er blimey, if this is what it feels like to be rescued - 7 years of falling living standards, national debt doubled and the country in chaos - I think we'd have been better left adrift!
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.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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.
Evidence of a possibility is not evidence of the existence of that possibility.
There's a possibility that Jeremy Corbyn might stick a cricket bat up his arse, pour treacle over his head and thereby attend the Queen's Speech in fancy dress as a toffee apple. It's a small possibility but it isn't zero.
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.
Your argument falls down on logical platforms. Not to get too dragged into semantics, you have not defined God firstly. If God is defined the creator of all things, it must exist prior to creation and therefore would be pertinent to any and all multiverses as all things stem from one act of creation when one believes in an artificial act of creation. If God is defined as something that exists within an individual multiverse it cannot, by definition, have made other multiverses and would be subject to the rules of that multiverse making it a creation of not the creator of that place. It would not meet the commonly understood concept of God. Reductio ad absurdum and fallacy of many questions fall down in your premise for starters.
Logic is a construction of man. Semantics won't help you.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
That's even more unlikely than your previous suggestion.
What about one where HMG is one of national unity formed of all the politicalbetting.com regulars as a Government-of-all-the-talents, and Sean Thomas is Prime Minister?
politicalbetting is a benign dictatorship, as you well know.
Seant is minister for foreign affairs.
He will insult your menfolk, drink your wine, and sleep with your women.
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.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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 differently. To take a more modern example of his logic, why shouldn't essentially random natural events - the precise moment of the nuclear decay of atoms, for example - be regarded as the direct intervention of god (or of a god) in the universe?
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
Not nearly enough. presently the Tories have about 250/800 peers.
It's novel idea to pack the Lords after having lost an election and with no electoral mandate to govern.
It's not, actually. It's what Asquith proposed after losing his majority in the 1910 election.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
If you were being in any way honest then it would start with the line:
"Any reasonable reading of the last few months would have to come to the conclusion that most of the problems now being experienced by Mrs May owe their origins to her former cabinet colleague George Osborne and his manifold failings as Chancellor."
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.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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.
Evidence of a possibility is not evidence of the existence of that possibility.
There's a possibility that Jeremy Corbyn might stick a cricket bat up his arse, pour treacle over his head and thereby attend the Queen's Speech in fancy dress as a toffee apple. It's a small possibility but it isn't zero.
it was actually zero - as he had already turned up in a suit and tie.
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
Not nearly enough. presently the Tories have about 250/800 peers.
It's novel idea to pack the Lords after having lost an election and with no electoral mandate to govern.
It would be rare for the Government to be defeated with 310+ Tory peers in practice.
They'd comfortably outvote Lab+LDs combined, and would require the non-aligned/crossbenchers to side with the opposition.
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.
Your argument falls down on logical platforms. Not to get too dragged into semantics, you have not defined God firstly. If God is defined the creator of all things, it must exist prior to creation and therefore would be pertinent to any and all multiverses as all things stem from one act of creation when one believes in an artificial act of creation. If God is defined as something that exists within an individual multiverse it cannot, by definition, have made other multiverses and would be subject to the rules of that multiverse making it a creation of not the creator of that place. It would not meet the commonly understood concept of God. Reductio ad absurdum and fallacy of many questions fall down in your premise for starters.
Logic is a construction of man. Semantics won't help you.
Why does God need to exist "prior to" creation given that one of the things created was time?
BBC: evil, baby-eating government to rehouse Grenfell survivors in £1.5 million apartments in the heart of Kensington, with 24-hour concierge and own cinema.
Good plan
Strange they didn't think of it sooner
Sounds like an ideal solution - especially since it will keep the community together. Credit to the government/whoever is responsible for pulling it off assuming all goes well.
Absolutely.
Strange I could have sworn some on here (JASON) etc opposed it.
Jezza appears to have more influence than we thought.
Oh hang on he proposed 69 so 68 is an entirely different policy
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
That's even more unlikely than your previous suggestion.
What about one where HMG is one of national unity formed of all the politicalbetting.com regulars as a Government-of-all-the-talents, and Sean Thomas is Prime Minister?
politicalbetting is a benign dictatorship, as you well know.
Seant is minister for foreign affairs.
He will insult your menfolk, drink your wine, and sleep with your women.
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.
Your argument falls down on logical platforms. Not to get too dragged into semantics, you have not defined God firstly. If God is defined the creator of all things, it must exist prior to creation and therefore would be pertinent to any and all multiverses as all things stem from one act of creation when one believes in an artificial act of creation. If God is defined as something that exists within an individual multiverse it cannot, by definition, have made other multiverses and would be subject to the rules of that multiverse making it a creation of not the creator of that place. It would not meet the commonly understood concept of God. Reductio ad absurdum and fallacy of many questions fall down in your premise for starters.
Logic is a construction of man. Semantics won't help you.
Protagoras of Abdera would tell you that man is the measure of all things.
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?
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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.
Evidence of a possibility is not evidence of the existence of that possibility.
There's a possibility that Jeremy Corbyn might stick a cricket bat up his arse, pour treacle over his head and thereby attend the Queen's Speech in fancy dress as a toffee apple. It's a small possibility but it isn't zero.
it was actually zero - as he had already turned up in a suit and tie.
Only in this universe.
Besides, two years ago Jeremy Corbyn turning up to the QS in a suit and tie after a GE would have been considered roughly as likely as the toffee apple path.
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?
And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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 differently. To take a more modern example of his logic, why shouldn't essentially random natural events - the precise moment of the nuclear decay of atoms, for example - be regarded as the direct intervention of god (or of a god) in the universe?
Because they are essentially random ?
Theists have sought for centuries to seek refuge in bits of the universe for which science doesn't have an adequate explanation. As the explicatory power of science expands, they shift their position, after denying it for a time.
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?
n. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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.
Evidence of a possibility is not evidence of the existence of that possibility.
There's a possibility that Jeremy Corbyn might stick a cricket bat up his arse, pour treacle over his head and thereby attend the Queen's Speech in fancy dress as a toffee apple. It's a small possibility but it isn't zero.
Quite. But evidence of possibility is rather different to no evidence of possibility. One has a chance of being correct, the other is something that does not exist.
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.
Yes.
scientism thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists. excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Science is the method by which we find out about life, the universe and everything. Peer review and experiment mean it is the best method for doing this. Or, you could have 'faith' I suppose.
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.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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 differently. To take a more modern example of his logic, why shouldn't essentially random natural events - the precise moment of the nuclear decay of atoms, for example - be regarded as the direct intervention of god (or of a god) in the universe?
Because if it is then he is pretty bloody unreliable (Schrodinger's pussy and all that).
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
Not nearly enough. presently the Tories have about 250/800 peers.
It's novel idea to pack the Lords after having lost an election and with no electoral mandate to govern.
It's not, actually. It's what Asquith proposed after losing his majority in the 1910 election.
Once every 117 years is novel enough for me .... or as they say in "family W" once in a lifetime ....
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
If you were being in any way honest then it would start with the line:
"Any reasonable reading of the last few months would have to come to the conclusion that most of the problems now being experienced by Mrs May owe their origins to her former cabinet colleague George Osborne and his manifold failings as Chancellor."
Nonsense.
The YouGov model showed the Tories were on course for a majority of 70 until Mrs May and Nick Timothy worked their magic on social care changes.
BBC: evil, baby-eating government to rehouse Grenfell survivors in £1.5 million apartments in the heart of Kensington, with 24-hour concierge and own cinema.
Good plan
Strange they didn't think of it sooner
Sounds like an ideal solution - especially since it will keep the community together. Credit to the government/whoever is responsible for pulling it off assuming all goes well.
Absolutely.
Strange I could have sworn some on here (JASON) etc opposed it.
Jezza appears to have more influence than we thought.
Oh hang on he proposed 69 so 68 is an entirely different policy
To be fair I think Jezza was saying compulsory purchase - sounds as though this development has been done voluntarily which is obviously preferable if possible.
I wonder if the prospect of inadvertently helping JC politically made the offer easier for the developer to make?
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
If you were being in any way honest then it would start with the line:
"Any reasonable reading of the last few months would have to come to the conclusion that most of the problems now being experienced by Mrs May owe their origins to her former cabinet colleague George Osborne and his manifold failings as Chancellor."
Nonsense.
The YouGov model showed the Tories were on course for a majority of 70 until Mrs May and Nick Timothy worked their magic on social care changes.
How do you know Labour closing the gap wasn't down to Corbyn's strong campaigning style and a popular Labour manifesto? Youth vote was up and overwhelmingly Labour; I can't see how GO would have stopped that happening.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
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?
And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
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 differently. To take a more modern example of his logic, why shouldn't essentially random natural events - the precise moment of the nuclear decay of atoms, for example - be regarded as the direct intervention of god (or of a god) in the universe?
Because they are essentially random ?
Theists have sought for centuries to seek refuge in bits of the universe for which science doesn't have an adequate explanation. As the explicatory power of science expands, they shift their position, after denying it for a time.
They do but it sorta makes sense.
If you live in a brick shed and have known nothing else, your idea of a God who made your world is someone like a bricklayer.
If one day you're let out of the brick shed and you find you're at the top of a skyscraper with jets flying overhead, your idea of God is going to need revising in the light of the new information about his capabilities, but it makes God bigger, not smaller.
There's not a huge lot of difference between the view that we knew everything the day the Bible was written and the rival idea that we now know just about everything through science. At the end of the 19th century we thought we had physics pretty much nailed, for example.
BBC: evil, baby-eating government to rehouse Grenfell survivors in £1.5 million apartments in the heart of Kensington, with 24-hour concierge and own cinema.
Good plan
Strange they didn't think of it sooner
Sounds like an ideal solution - especially since it will keep the community together. Credit to the government/whoever is responsible for pulling it off assuming all goes well.
Absolutely.
Strange I could have sworn some on here (JASON) etc opposed it.
Jezza appears to have more influence than we thought.
Oh hang on he proposed 69 so 68 is an entirely different policy
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.
Yes.
scientism thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists. excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Science is the method by which we find out about life, the universe and everything. Peer review and experiment mean it is the best method for doing this. Or, you could have 'faith' I suppose.
Scientism is kind of the demented halfwitted child of Logical Positivism, and it makes claims about science that are absolute nonsense. For example, that they're how we find out about "life, the universe, and everything." Science cannot tell us, for example, how to live. The franchise wasn't extended to men that didn't own land, or to women, because of the discovery of a scientific fact. For that, you need philosophy.
Philosophy is the thing you're trying to do right now.
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.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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 differently. To take a more modern example of his logic, why shouldn't essentially random natural events - the precise moment of the nuclear decay of atoms, for example - be regarded as the direct intervention of god (or of a god) in the universe?
Because if it is then he is pretty bloody unreliable (Schrodinger's pussy and all that).
Newton was a mason so believed in a supreme being i think and allegedly the illuminati (not sure how did that so my bit is the last line)
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?
n. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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.
Evidence of a possibility is not evidence of the existence of that possibility.
There's a possibility that Jeremy Corbyn might stick a cricket bat up his arse, pour treacle over his head and thereby attend the Queen's Speech in fancy dress as a toffee apple. It's a small possibility but it isn't zero.
Quite. But evidence of possibility is rather different to no evidence of possibility. One has a chance of being correct, the other is something that does not exist.
There's no evidence of the impossibility of God either. What stops her existing?
The best Tory performance after adjusting for leave/remain was ......................... Sheffield Hallam. Hackney North & Stoke Newington & Vauxhall quite high too for the blues.
Hartlepool was very very very good for Labour.
East Midlands looks to be by far the best area for the Tories vs Labour outside of Scotland.
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.
Yes.
scientism thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists. excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Science is the method by which we find out about life, the universe and everything. Peer review and experiment mean it is the best method for doing this. Or, you could have 'faith' I suppose.
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.
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 requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all 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 differently. To take a more modern example of his logic, why shouldn't essentially random natural events - the precise moment of the nuclear decay of atoms, for example - be regarded as the direct intervention of god (or of a god) in the universe?
Because if it is then he is pretty bloody unreliable (Schrodinger's pussy and all that).
Newton was a mason so believed in a supreme being i think and allegedly the illuminati
Kurt Godel used to carry around an ontological proof of the existence of God of his own design around with him at all times.
Was the give us your empty luxury apartment you land blocking bastard we need it for the victims of a fire in the QS?
Or are the Tories just going to enact all Jezzas best ideas.
Either way is fine.
The difference is that these were bought on the open market rather than seizing someone's pad in the Phillimores because they are currently summering at their place in Gloucestershire.
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
Not nearly enough. presently the Tories have about 250/800 peers.
It's novel idea to pack the Lords after having lost an election and with no electoral mandate to govern.
It would be rare for the Government to be defeated with 310+ Tory peers in practice.
They'd comfortably outvote Lab+LDs combined, and would require the non-aligned/crossbenchers to side with the opposition.
Not so. 60+ Con peers would make approx 315. Lab/LibDem = 305
Apropos bowgate, it would seem the correct protocol is that it's only the officials (Black Rod, the Speaker etc) who should bow; ordinary MPs shouldn't. So it would seem it was May who was in breach of protocol; Cameron didn't bow in 2015 and 2016, and neither did Harriet Harman in 2015.
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.
Yes.
scientism thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists. excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Science is the method by which we find out about life, the universe and everything. Peer review and experiment mean it is the best method for doing this. Or, you could have 'faith' I suppose.
Science =/= scientism
Only for those who have a fundamentally wrong view of science. This is not surprising considering some of what passes for science these days but that is no excuse for supposedly educated people to make such basic mistakes as you are making.
Apropos bowgate, it would seem the correct protocol is that it's only the officials (Black Rod, the Speaker etc) who should bow; ordinary MPs shouldn't. So it would seem it was May who was in breach of protocol; Cameron didn't bow in 2015 and 2016, and neither did Harriet Harman in 2015.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what all 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?
n. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
Nope, incorrect. All multiverses om one point of infinite density and infinite energy.
This belief requires faith in h either way.
The physics of multiverses is reasonably understood. It's science, not faith.
So in that casetanding" 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.
Evidence of a possibility is not evidence of the existence of that possibility.
There's a possibility that Jeremy Corbyn might stick a cricket bat up his arse, pour treacle over his head and thereby attend the Queen's Speech in fancy dress as a toffee apple. It's a small possibility but it isn't zero.
Quite. vidence of possibility. One has a chance of being correct, the other is something that does not exist.
There's no evidence of the impossibility of God either. What stops her existing?
Things can not be other than as they are. Ergo there is no God. There has never been a God, never will be a God nor does God exist within this or any other possible universe. God cannot exist within the Universe, any Universe, unless it is subject to the laws of that Universe and thus be a creation of and not the creator of that universe. Any existence outside the physical multiverse is utterly irrelevant. For 2 plus 2, the existence of 5 is an irrelevance.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
If you were being in any way honest then it would start with the line:
"Any reasonable reading of the last few months would have to come to the conclusion that most of the problems now being experienced by Mrs May owe their origins to her former cabinet colleague George Osborne and his manifold failings as Chancellor."
Nonsense.
The YouGov model showed the Tories were on course for a majority of 70 until Mrs May and Nick Timothy worked their magic on social care changes.
What did yougov say about the Brexit referendum before GO worked his project fear magic ?
Is Kwasi Kwarteng really talking about being young and thrusting, and offering strong and stable leadership? Did no one read through his speech in advance and offer some helpful suggestions? Oh dear.
Still, nice to think that Trump's visit is now on a "we'll get back to you on that" basis.
Newton was a mason so believed in a supreme being i think and allegedly the illuminati (not sure how did that so my bit is the last line)
I think your inability to use quotes properly on here has led to you ascribing views to me that I do not hold. The only bit of the quoted exchange I wrote was
"Because if it is then he is pretty bloody unreliable (Schrodinger's pussy and all that)."
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
If you were being in any way honest then it would start with the line:
"Any reasonable reading of the last few months would have to come to the conclusion that most of the problems now being experienced by Mrs May owe their origins to her former cabinet colleague George Osborne and his manifold failings as Chancellor."
Nonsense.
The YouGov model showed the Tories were on course for a majority of 70 until Mrs May and Nick Timothy worked their magic on social care changes.
I thought the yougov model was launched after the manifesto & SC cap?
Anyway, it wasn't the social care stuff wot kaboshed TM's majority. It was the u-turn.
If anything, she needed to go much harder on older retirees with significant property wealth;
The intergenerational stuff was all fart and no follow through. She could have reshaped conservatism for a new generation, winning votes where she needed them and losing them where she didn't.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
Churchill wasn't very popular at various stages of his career.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
If you were being in any way honest then it would start with the line:
"Any reasonable reading of the last few months would have to come to the conclusion that most of the problems now being experienced by Mrs May owe their origins to her former cabinet colleague George Osborne and his manifold failings as Chancellor."
Nonsense.
The YouGov model showed the Tories were on course for a majority of 70 until Mrs May and Nick Timothy worked their magic on social care changes.
Which one? The one that showed them with a 7 point lead the day before the election?
Comments
I mean, it must be so common for people to inadvertently keep luxury apartments empty at the cost of God knows how many tens of thousands a year.
I do realise the rich are different, and they routinely do things that are quite incomprehensible to the rest of us mere mortals.
"Up to three quarters of Germany’s refugees will still be unemployed in five years’ time, according to a government minister, in a stark admission of the challenges the country faces in integrating its huge migrant population.
Aydan Özoğuz, commissioner for integration, refugees and integration, told the Financial Times that only a quarter to a third of the newcomers would enter the labour market over the next five years, and “for many others we will need up to 10”.
I'm writing a George Osborne themed thread for Sunday.
I fear quite a few PBers will need sedating.
Pro rata, that would amount to somewhere around £140bn extra spending across the UK as a whole...
It's the social housing allocation from the St. Edwards development at 375 Kensington High Street.
The Corporation of London is buying them, and letting RBKC use them for social housing. Berkeley & the Pru (who own St. Edwards) have sold the flats at cost price - around £10 million - so very well done to them
Strange they didn't think of it sooner
If the number of MPs is reduced to 600, then Northern Ireland's share is reduced to 17. The boundary commission have cut Belfast from four MPs to three, by reducing it to the inner city, which is mostly Nationalist. The outskirts, which are mostly Unionist, would be shifted into neighbouring seats that are already safely Unionist.
So, Belfast would go from three Unionist, one Nationalist, to two Nationalist, one Alliance on these proposals, although I suspect that the DUP would actually win the notionally Alliance seat.
Upper Bann is also converted from a safe Unionist seat to a marginally Nationalist seat.
If so, I recommend that you start here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/almost-no-evidence-london-homes-owned-foreign-buyers-left-empty/
It's novel idea to pack the Lords after having lost an election and with no electoral mandate to govern.
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.
He's done his bit for party and country.
I think anybody who has bought a house would be love to be able to complete in a week.
And if they are then everything that could happen must do so.
There's a universe in which I have a butler for example.
His Austerity measures screwed the country, and his Editorials did the same for the Tories.
What's he planning on wrecking next?
Credit to the government/whoever is responsible for pulling it off assuming all goes well.
Normally, only around 600-650 or so turn up, and crossbenchers/some bishops normally (eventually) do the honourable thing.
As long as the Government gets 210 or so of its own peers, the DUP/UUP/UKIP peers, and around 80-90 of the crossbenchers, and a bakers dozen of non affiliates, it should be ok.
The pasty tax, unlike the dementia tax, never cost a single Tory MP their seat.
Still, he's only at the start of his transition to universally-admired National Treasure. Give it ten years...
Seant is minister for foreign affairs.
(And, yes, the cheaper units in a development tend to be in the less attractive parts. Clearly, as well, St. Edwards do well out of this in terms of (a) completing the development faster to release development resources in the tight market (b) shifting hard to sell social units in a single transaction to reduce complexity (c) goodwill generated with key stakeholders (in particular the Corporation) by helping them out
Perhaps paying attention to GO was her biggest mistake ?
I have no issues with a different building or with not getting access to add-on services without payment, but if they are in the same block you can't reasonable restrict access via certain entrants.
There's a possibility that Jeremy Corbyn might stick a cricket bat up his arse, pour treacle over his head and thereby attend the Queen's Speech in fancy dress as a toffee apple. It's a small possibility but it isn't zero.
#Britainisgreat
"Any reasonable reading of the last few months would have to come to the conclusion that most of the problems now being experienced by Mrs May owe their origins to her former cabinet colleague George Osborne and his manifold failings as Chancellor."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/21/tennis-champion-boris-becker-declared-bankrupt/
They'd comfortably outvote Lab+LDs combined, and would require the non-aligned/crossbenchers to side with the opposition.
Strange I could have sworn some on here (JASON) etc opposed it.
Jezza appears to have more influence than we thought.
Oh hang on he proposed 69 so 68 is an entirely different policy
Besides, two years ago Jeremy Corbyn turning up to the QS in a suit and tie after a GE would have been considered roughly as likely as the toffee apple path.
I still don't believe in God.
Does making Mars British qualify as Empire 3.0?
Theists have sought for centuries to seek refuge in bits of the universe for which science doesn't have an adequate explanation. As the explicatory power of science expands, they shift their position, after denying it for a time.
There's an infinity of other universes in which you do.
One has a chance of being correct, the other is something that does not exist.
scientism
thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.
Science is the method by which we find out about life, the universe and everything. Peer review and experiment mean it is the best method for doing this.
Or, you could have 'faith' I suppose.
The YouGov model showed the Tories were on course for a majority of 70 until Mrs May and Nick Timothy worked their magic on social care changes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/40355365
https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/877065072132194304
I wonder if the prospect of inadvertently helping JC politically made the offer easier for the developer to make?
Or are the Tories just going to enact all Jezzas best ideas.
Either way is fine.
If you live in a brick shed and have known nothing else, your idea of a God who made your world is someone like a bricklayer.
If one day you're let out of the brick shed and you find you're at the top of a skyscraper with jets flying overhead, your idea of God is going to need revising in the light of the new information about his capabilities, but it makes God bigger, not smaller.
There's not a huge lot of difference between the view that we knew everything the day the Bible was written and the rival idea that we now know just about everything through science. At the end of the 19th century we thought we had physics pretty much nailed, for example.
https://twitter.com/GuyVerhofstadt/status/877524088314621960
Philosophy is the thing you're trying to do right now.
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 differently. To take a more modern example of his logic, why shouldn't essentially random natural events - the precise moment of the nuclear decay of atoms, for example - be regarded as the direct intervention of god (or of a god) in the universe?
Because if it is then he is pretty bloody unreliable (Schrodinger's pussy and all that).
Newton was a mason so believed in a supreme being i think and allegedly the illuminati (not sure how did that so my bit is the last line)
Hackney North & Stoke Newington & Vauxhall quite high too for the blues.
Hartlepool was very very very good for Labour.
East Midlands looks to be by far the best area for the Tories vs Labour outside of Scotland.
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 differently. To take a more modern example of his logic, why shouldn't essentially random natural events - the precise moment of the nuclear decay of atoms, for example - be regarded as the direct intervention of god (or of a god) in the universe?
Because if it is then he is pretty bloody unreliable (Schrodinger's pussy and all that).
Newton was a mason so believed in a supreme being i think and allegedly the illuminati
Kurt Godel used to carry around an ontological proof of the existence of God of his own design around with him at all times.
A tad tight ..
;-)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/21/bow-row-jeremy-corbyn-did-not-snub-the-queen-says-labour
Any existence outside the physical multiverse is utterly irrelevant. For 2 plus 2, the existence of 5 is an irrelevance.
Still, nice to think that Trump's visit is now on a "we'll get back to you on that" basis.
Mr. Owls, no idea, but one hopes the Government hasn't decided to throw property rights and the rule of law on the bonfire of political convenience.
"Because if it is then he is pretty bloody unreliable (Schrodinger's pussy and all that)."
Anyway, it wasn't the social care stuff wot kaboshed TM's majority. It was the u-turn.
If anything, she needed to go much harder on older retirees with significant property wealth;
https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/877441992971755521
The intergenerational stuff was all fart and no follow through. She could have reshaped conservatism for a new generation, winning votes where she needed them and losing them where she didn't.
She wasn't bold enough.
She wasted a perfectly good Jeremy Corbyn.