Skip to main content

I am speaking at this event assuming I can remain sober...

Crystal Head
Here's the blurb (not written by me). Note I am introduced by Ghostbuster Dan Ackroyd - possibly the highlight of my entire career...

Have you heard the world is coming to an end on December 21st? So said the Mayans. Not sure how I feel about these things, but think I might put off Christmas shopping until the 22nd just in case.

On December 5th, hidden beneath St Andrews Church, in a lock 13th century crypt there is a head, shaped from solid quartz that offers it’s bearer spiritual power and enlightenment. Oh wait, it’s filled with vodka – even better!

Crystal Head Vodka, who are clearly fans of a mystery – having named themselves after the 13 crystal heads that were found and polished into shape from solid quartz that are said to offer enlightenment – are hosting a discussion on the Mayan prediction. Dan Aykroyd (the man behind the iconic vodka and more than a few iconic films) will introduce the discussion (via the medium of film); philosopher Dr. Stephen Law and Professor Elizabeth Graham, expert in Mesoamerican archeology, will take to the stand to provide insight into the 2012 prophecy debate, and explore its history and, more importantly, its reality.

Crystal Head’s mixologists will be on hand to guide you through this troubling time with a series of specially-created cocktails and signature serves.

I’ve always said, if the world is really coming to an end, I’d rather it came when I had a drink in my hand.

There are still spaces but like the world, they are soon coming to an end too, RSVP now to crystalheadvodka@wcommunications.co.uk

‘End of the World’ Lecture with Crystal Head Vodka | 5th December at 7pm – 10pm |St.Andrews Crypt Holborn, 7 St Andrews Street, EC4A 3AB

Comments

Unknown said…
Will this lecture be recorded? Would be great to see. Perhaps bring it down to London..
November 30, 2012 at 5:58 PM
S Johnson said…
Off topic here, but the post on Berekeley's idealism was blank on my computer. (And no previous posts appear beneath it.)

A glitch in my computer? A glitch in your website? Passive aggressive programming?
December 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Munashe the Cheetah said…
Please ensure this events gets recorded and uploaded to youtube so everyone can benefit from what is said.
December 2, 2012 at 1:56 AM
Anti Money Laundering said…
Real unique concept. Love the bottle.
December 3, 2012 at 2:24 AM
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 - nowhere to run to, baby.

SYE RESPONDS TO MY PRECEEDING POST: @ Stephen, Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don't you show me how it's done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer "The impossibility of the contrary," for the truth of my premise that "God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy," is not, in fact, an argument. Alright in the format you are requesting of me: premise 1 premise 2 premise 3 (...) premise n Therefore: conclusion please prove to me, that "The impossibility of the contrary" is not an argument. Cheers, Sye MY RESPONSE TO SYE: Sye You misunderstand. I am not saying you don't have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don't think you have a good argument - for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button to support your conclusion). I am saying I cannot figure out what th...
153 comments
Read more