IntenseDebate - nottsBP

13 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Thouands stage Belfast... · 0 replies · +15 points

Do Nobel laureates count?

13 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Without change DUP won... · 0 replies · +2 points

Seems like your position is faith-based.
Once last try then. What territorial gains did the parliament in London in 1801 make over the parliament in Dublin in 1800?

13 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Without change DUP won... · 2 replies · +1 points

Let me assist you:
"Ireland was never united under Westminster. At different times in it's long history Westminster covered various parts of the island and various lordships, feifdoms and clergy posts, sometimes covering large areas sometimes not but at no time did it govern the whole of a united island."

Tell me in what way the above statement is wrong.

13 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Without change DUP won... · 4 replies · +1 points

Quote: "Ireland was never united under the Parliament of Ireland. At different times in it's long history the PoI covered various parts of the island and various lordships, feifdoms and clergy posts, sometimes covering large areas sometimes not but at no time did it govern the whole of a united island."

Please replace "Parliament of Ireland" with "Westminster" in your comment above. You would have me believe the former is true and the latter false? This is nonsense.

13 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Without change DUP won... · 6 replies · +2 points

The exact same argument can be made for administration from London.

13 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Without change DUP won... · 8 replies · +2 points

I would have thought my post was quite clear. If you are making the assertion that Ireland was united under administration from Parliament in London, then a similar argument can be made that Ireland was also united under administration from Parliament in Dublin, surely.

13 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Without change DUP won... · 10 replies · +2 points

Quote: "When you say united again, are you suggesting that the Republic should re-join the UK as that was the only time that Ireland was ever united?"

You might be interested to know that prior to union with the UK, the Parliament of Ireland existed for more than 500 years, pre-dating the Parliament of England.

13 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - Tricolour is flag of a... · 2 replies · +13 points

With such an interest in British flags, perhaps the author will also take an equal interest in British Law.
Ireland Act 1949
Subsection 2. Republic of Ireland not a foreign country.
(1) It is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty’s dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country for the purposes of any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom or in any colony, protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory, whether by virtue of a rule of law or of an Act of Parliament or any other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, and references in any Act of Parliament, other enactment or instrument whatsoever, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, to foreigners, aliens, foreign countries, and foreign or foreign-built ships or aircraft shall be construed accordingly. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14...

13 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - The real creation ques... · 1 reply · +2 points

Quote "How can science answer philosophical questions about ethics or aesthetics?"

I would direct you moral naturalism, recommend Sam Harris as a useful primer, and also direct you to evolutionary aesthetics.
Regarding this subject of nothing, there are so many concepts of philosophical nothing that it seems you can pick whatever one fits your preconception. So, I´ll stick with the concept of nothing as understood by those who actually study the nature of the universe (physicists), and you can go doodle your god into any concept of nothing you want.

Quote "the hypothesis is that a transcendent something, analogical to a "mind" is the source of that universe of intelligibles".
Firstly, hypotheses need to be clear and direct. Using words like "something" and "analogical" is just lazy. Secondly, they also must be falsifiable. Ignoring the confirmation bias running through your final paragraph, I can’t see any way your assertions can be coherently formulated into hypotheses and falsified, can you? If you can claim any of your assertions have been empirically tested, repeated, and verified, then let’s have a look. Titles and Journals please, I'll take it from there.

13 years ago @ http://www.belfasttele... - The real creation ques... · 3 replies · +2 points

Quote "That's not from nothing"

Physicists will state that this IS the definition of nothing. No matter, no energy, or curvature of space.
Now, you can have a very elaborate debate about "philosophical" nothing, but ultimately that will not provide any answers to your god question.
In the words of PZ Myers "Philosophy is a useful tool for generating good questions, but then science is what answers them".
Ultimately, the most important question you should be asking is "Do I have empirical evidence for the existence of god?" The answer is a resounding NO.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with nottsBP

People I'm following

nottsBP