Skip to main content

Philosopher's Football Match Sunday

Date: Sunday, 9 May, 2010
Location: The Harry Abrahams Stadium, Finchley, N12 0PD (nearest Tubes: East or West Finchley)

Gates open 1.30pm.

Commentator: Laurie Taylor.

John Humphrys (Today Prog R4) will be there, as will Terry Jones (Monty Python), Graham Taylor (former England manager)...

The Match kick-off takes place at 3pm and will last 110 minutes in total and thus
with final whistle (allowing for extra time at the referee's discretion!) is at
4.50pm.

We anticipate getting 500 spectators on the day, including families, on the day,
and there is extensive media interest as well.

£10 web (collect your ticket at the gate) or £20 on the day. Kids £1.

Website: www.philosophersfootball.com


Germans

Philosopher Simon Glendenning voted Most Creative Goal Celebrator 2008-09 season is in goal for Nietzsche Albion, Philosopher Julian Baggini in the back as Nutter Tackler with a strong mid-field duo of Philosopher and Journalist Mark Vernon and Comedian Arthur ‘Schopenhauer’ Smith big fan of the Flat Back Four up front. Philosopher AC Grayling is Manager reported to be banned from the touchline for barracking the fourth official for crass determinism.

Greeks

For the Socrates Wanderers, we have Comedian Mark Steel Academy Discovery in goal. Tony Hawks is a front runner and Ariane Sharine is sweeper. Ariane Sharine is very much in form while Tony Hawks has been quoted as determined to hack old foe Epicurus off the park. Former Watford, Aston Villa and England Gaffer Graham Taylor is Manager.

I am centre midfield for the Greeks.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Unfortunately I'm not able to enjoy the match, -unless you persuade "Eurosports" to broadcast :-)

Admittingly off topic: After your debate with Hamza Tzortzis, I have looked in vain for some update/footage on the event.
I have also looked at Tzortzis' own web-page and have not been able to find anything.

The M.O. of mr Tzortzis do remind me quite a bit of the animal rights "philosopher" Gary Francione. (He usually engages in any debate and later declares victory whatever outcome the debate had in the real world).
The absence of any footage on Tzortzis blog is interesting.

He has a header where the debate would fit rather naturally:
http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2009/09/philosophical-theological-response-to.html

Wasn't the intention of the event to make the debate available as a podcast or similar?

Cassanders
In Cod we trust
May 9, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Stephen Law said…
He says it will appear for sure...
May 9, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more