1. Comment #122756 by GodRemixed on February 6, 2008 at 1:08 am

Great book, I read it before I read End of Faith.

Other Comments by GodRemixed

2. Comment #122757 by Styrer- on February 6, 2008 at 1:16 am

It is with real happiness that I respond to this clip. Not only does the Professor remind us of the wonders of the universe and of our place in it - these can sometimes go unmentioned, or unemphasized, by the other 'horsemen' - but he also shows up the despicable NOMA idea for its true worthlessness.

'A universe with a god is very different scientifically from a universe without a god.'

I can't stop thinking that this is the core to it all.

As for the morality issue - well, I am about as bored with this as the Prof must be in having to constantly address it.

Thank you, Professor. I wonder if you ever thought that sheer repetition would play as large a part in this as your teaching must also require at New College.

Thank you sincerely for having the stomach for it.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

3. Comment #122758 by Silent.Bomber on February 6, 2008 at 1:43 am

Good interview.

Other Comments by Silent.Bomber

4. Comment #122789 by sarah95 on February 6, 2008 at 4:54 am

I just put this on youtube. The other two videos that go with this one are on my account too.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WJqX-v_ueZ4

Other Comments by sarah95

5. Comment #122792 by SPS on February 6, 2008 at 5:05 am

I think there should be a way for people to get a copy of TGD for free the way people can get a copy of the bible for free.

Other Comments by SPS

6. Comment #122795 by Synchronium on February 6, 2008 at 5:14 am

As for the morality issue - well, I am about as bored with this as the Prof must be in having to constantly address it.

How do people not see this? Seriously.

Other Comments by Synchronium

7. Comment #122812 by Gymnopedie on February 6, 2008 at 6:08 am

The God Delusion? Never heard of it.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

8. Comment #122813 by notsobad on February 6, 2008 at 6:16 am

All you need to knock down the ridiculous statements about morality and altruism coming from religion is to show statistics and remind everybody that the world's two biggest philanthropists, Gates and Buffett, are agnostics.

Other Comments by notsobad

9. Comment #122821 by flyingscot on February 6, 2008 at 6:55 am

I am very glad we do not get our morals from the Old Testament or the Koran!
The God Delusion definitely puts everything into perspective and is wonderfully enjoyable read.

Thank you Professor Dawkins.

Other Comments by flyingscot

10. Comment #122833 by quill on February 6, 2008 at 7:36 am

notsobad:All you need to knock down the ridiculous statements about morality and altruism coming from religion is to show statistics and remind everybody that the world's two biggest philanthropists, Gates and Buffett, are agnostics.

And of course, after those two, the third greatest philanthropist in history was Andrew Carnegie, a completely outspoken atheist. John D. Rockefeller, a Baptist, came in a distant fourth.

I always ask theists, if religious people are supposedly more moral than atheists, simply to explain that fact. The only answer they can ever give is that atheists just have more money.

Other Comments by quill

11. Comment #122836 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 6, 2008 at 7:39 am

I think there should be a way for people to get a copy of TGD for free the way people can get a copy of the bible for free.

indeed, something like a...publcily funded recriprical of books....perhaps a....libratorium...or a library...

^_^

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

12. Comment #122911 by krisking on February 6, 2008 at 9:13 am

As for the morality issue - well, I am about as bored with this as the Prof must be in having to constantly address it.

Well, it will be interesting to see where post-christian british society will go in the future.......any guesses?

Other Comments by krisking

13. Comment #122914 by krisking on February 6, 2008 at 9:16 am

I think there should be a way for people to get a copy of TGD for free the way people can get a copy of the bible for free.

Well, how do you think Christians do it?

Other Comments by krisking

14. Comment #122941 by Fire1974 on February 6, 2008 at 9:32 am

I literally just finished TGD just now, at 12:10pm EST, it has been a long time coming. I had meant to read it months ago but was already sold on the idea that god was a delusion. However, as with all Prof. Dawkins books I've read, it has fantastically removed much of my conceptual 'burka'. Thank you!

I am now proud to say that I have read: The God Delusion, The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, Breaking the Spell, God is Not Great, The Ancestors Tail, The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, Guns, Germs and Steel and Carl Sagan's Cosmos within the last year and a half.

They have changed my life.

Other Comments by Fire1974

15. Comment #122949 by SPS on February 6, 2008 at 9:38 am

Well, how do you think Christians do it?

Well, I assume god simply creates enough to hand out ;)

Other Comments by SPS

16. Comment #122976 by Riley on February 6, 2008 at 9:56 am

Fire1974,

I recommend you also read Carl Sagan's last book: "Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark"

Other Comments by Riley

17. Comment #122977 by krisking on February 6, 2008 at 9:59 am

They have changed my life.

Really?! That's quite a statement. How have they changed your life?

Other Comments by krisking

18. Comment #122982 by al-rawandi on February 6, 2008 at 10:06 am

krisking,


Post Christian British society:

Guesses from a non-brit:

-Still drink tea
-Stuffy sense of humor
-Play cricket and rugby
-A democracy
-Queen might be gone *fingers crossed*
-Less foreign intervention
-In tune with the global economy
-Children with healthier psyches
-Amy Winehouse will still be alive

Any questions?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

19. Comment #122999 by Lucas on February 6, 2008 at 10:45 am

On the free distribution of TGD idea... Libraries work great, where they exist. Neither Brits nor Americans need worry about not being able to read TGD, as we're generally rich enough to buy a paperback book, or at least a bus ticket to the library. All good there. I'm more concerned about those in poorer, less developed countries. Like the Bible, TGD needs to be translated into obscure languages and given out for free, or where literacy is low, local agents who have read it should spread the word. I mean, hey, if this method works for inane bullshit, it should work fine for reasonable arguments as well. So I guess what we, or rather RDF, needs to do, is find like-minded folk in third-world countries who are willing to translate into local languages and then fund the printing of copies of TGD in these languages. I'll personally volunteer to distribute them.

Other Comments by Lucas

20. Comment #123006 by El Dubious Mung on February 6, 2008 at 10:53 am

Is anyone else noticing that Richard is looking much older?

Take a break, Professor. Go on a nice vacation for a month. Then you can get back to the book-promoting circuit.

Or even quit it all together. Professor Dawkins has now started to achieve celebrity status, and I don't think it suits him.

Other Comments by El Dubious Mung

21. Comment #123102 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Professor Dawkins has now started to achieve celebrity status, and I don't think it suits him.

I think his celebrity status has been established for quite some time. He has been one of the public faces of science for many years.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

22. Comment #123103 by Fenriswolf on February 6, 2008 at 1:07 pm

My thanks go to sarah95, and I must also say how much I appreciate your musical taste having clicked on your name to view your other videos.

Also, good little interview. Short and to the point.

C

Other Comments by Fenriswolf

23. Comment #123104 by Shmeezers on February 6, 2008 at 1:08 pm

I think the morality argument is being missed here. The point is that we have this fundamental sense of right and wrong. There really is no justification for this if we got here by slaughtering each other for millions of years (or whatever the story says), having concerned ourselves simply with passing our genes on. We could possibly have instituted such morals for the benefit that they offer us, but then there is no justification for giving them any importance beyond this. But I would wager that many atheists, just like many believers, truly believe that it is wrong, for example, to kill somebody in cold blood, or to scam someone out of their honestly earned income. I would wager that these atheists believe this not simply because they think such moral notions are important in order to keep peace in society, but because it is inherently wrong. This is the essence of the argument. Where did this moral sense - this moral intuition, as Margaret Sommerville emphasizes so much - come from? I don't think you can argue that it came out of the context of "survival of the fittest". But this is precisely what Darwinians must argue. It is neither here nor there that any particular atheist feels this moral sense to a greater extent than a believer in Christianity does. The point is that we ALL feel this moral sense, to a greater degree in certain cases, to a lesser degree in others. This is what must be explained, and Darwinism cannot do it.

Other Comments by Shmeezers

24. Comment #123117 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2008 at 1:22 pm

The point is that we ALL feel this moral sense, to a greater degree in certain cases, to a lesser degree in others. This is what must be explained, and Darwinism cannot do it.

It certainly can. We did not get here by slaughter (at least not of family and friends).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #123131 by krisking on February 6, 2008 at 1:41 pm

risking,


Post Christian British society:

Guesses from a non-brit:

-Still drink tea
-Stuffy sense of humor
-Play cricket and rugby
-A democracy
-Queen might be gone *fingers crossed*
-Less foreign intervention
-In tune with the global economy
-Children with healthier psyches
-Amy Winehouse will still be alive

Any questions?

less foreign intervention? how is that relevant? (or even true? - europe, usa, foreign owned water companies in britain etc etc)

Children with healthier psyches? have you met any recently? or been into our essentially secular schools?

Rising drink problems among young people and attendant street violence..

parents accused of poor parenting....

etc

Other Comments by krisking

26. Comment #123133 by al-rawandi on February 6, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Steve,


Darwin's theories are limited (as are most 19th century theories), they have been expanded upon through research and empirical evidence. The sum of this research and understanding provides the BEST understanding of our morality and its development.

It is not as if it is also moral (in relation to religion) it provides superior morals.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

27. Comment #123146 by epeeist on February 6, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Comment #122982 by al-rawandi

Post Christian British society:

Guesses from a non-brit:

-Still drink tea

Being gradually replaced by coffee drinking. However Betty's teashops are as popular as ever

-Stuffy sense of humor

From the country that brought you the Goons and Monty Python?

-Play cricket and rugby

And still come second

-A democracy

Corporate Oligarchy, same as the States

-Queen might be gone *fingers crossed*

Replaced by arch-loony Charles

-In tune with the global economy

Lots more billionares, lots more serfs, smaller middle class

-Children with healthier psyches

Hated by virtually the whole of society (well, Daily Mail readers anyway) and accused of being "feral"

-Amy Winehouse will still be alive

The Halle Orchestra celebrates its 200th anniversary and the York Early Music Festival goes from strength to strength. Opera North does a complete "Ring Cycle"

Other Comments by epeeist

28. Comment #123229 by crabsallover on February 6, 2008 at 4:35 pm

5. Comment #122792 by SPS on February 6, 2008 at 5:05 am
I think there should be a way for people to get a copy of TGD for free the way people can get a copy of the bible for free.

Be a Member of Parliament! I'm proud to say I had a hand in the success of the pledge to send all 645 UK MPs a copy of The God Delusion last spring: http://www.pledgebank.com/church-and-state/info

See the graph a week before the end date - thanks to BHA, NSS and RichardDawkins mailshots on the last Friday, the pledge was successful.

Other Comments by crabsallover

29. Comment #123236 by sarah95 on February 6, 2008 at 4:52 pm

I don't think you can argue that it came out of the context of "survival of the fittest". But this is precisely what Darwinians must argue.

Schmeezers, you really don't understand evolution thoroughly if you think that the only thing that comes out of survival of the fittest is "slaughter". The entire book "The Selfish Gene" is dedicated to explaining how the level of selection is the gene, so when genes replicate and end up "living" in many different individuals, the selfish nature of the gene lends itself to the altruistic nature of the individual. I won't kill my mom or my neighbor because my selfish genes also live in my mom, and if I were to kill my neighbor, I would be risking the animocity of all the people he shares genes with. You might also consider looking up game theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Theory

before you argue that natural selection cannot select for "morals" of some kind.
It is not "wrong" or "shameful" to be ignorant of evolution. I am ignorant of Chinese art, but that's not "wrong". What would be wrong was if I went about saying that Chinese art had nothing to contribute to modern philosophy, without having bothered to try and understand it.
PLEASE, before you claim that evolution can't produce moral beings, ACTUALLY READ The Selfish Gene, and get your hands on a used high school or college Biology text book in order to better understand evolution instead of just saying things like "slaughtering each other for millions of years (or whatever the story says), " as though you understood it. Obviously, if you have to say, "or whatever the story says", then you can't deny the criticism that you don't know enough about Darwinism in the first place to claim that it can't bring about morals.

Other Comments by sarah95

30. Comment #123237 by atheisticism on February 6, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Not only are we still "slaughtering each other" but god belief seems to be the main motivation behind the slaughter. Perhaps a better question is how we are able to be moral when we DO believe in god!

Other Comments by atheisticism

31. Comment #123242 by notsobad on February 6, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Shmeezers,
it's quite funny when you conclude what Darwinism can or cannot do when it seems that you don't even know what fitness means in biology.

Other Comments by notsobad

32. Comment #123245 by Cartomancer on February 6, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Post-Christian British Society eh?

Well, how about legalised homosexuality with an equal age of consent, full marriage rights, full adoption rights, anti-discrimination laws in place, thriving gay culture and serious attempts to root out institutionalised prejudice in society?

And having taught in entirely secular British schools for a couple of years I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the students are infinitely cheerier, happier, better rounded, more stable and nicer people than the sickly, unhappy specimens I spent my childhood with.

And if you want to see drunken street violence try medieval Britain on for size. That would be a... yes, I do believe that would be a strongly christian country.

Oh, and becoming more like the secular, socialistic Scandinavians would be an undeniably good thing too. We'll get there...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

33. Comment #123261 by sarah95 on February 6, 2008 at 6:16 pm

My thanks go to sarah95, and I must also say how much I appreciate your musical taste having clicked on your name to view your other videos.

Also, good little interview. Short and to the point.

C

You're quite welcome, Fenriswolf! I'ts just one of those added benefits to find someone who has both rational thinking and oasis on the mind. In fact, I hear that Noel's a Dawkins fan! Aside from that, part of the point of my youtube activities and going around signing things
"Sarah
*the atheist figure skater* "
is to do my bit in the OUT campaign to show that anyone you(speaking to the hypothetical masses here) know could be an atheist. they're not scary and anti-social. you may be friends with an atheist and not even know it: your neighbor? your doctor? perhaps even that girl you see at the local ice rink?

I just want to help de-stigmatize it all, and show that it's not really politically charged, but that it's ok to be an atheist and that atheists as a group are diverse.

Other Comments by sarah95

34. Comment #123382 by bamboospitfire on February 7, 2008 at 4:22 am

RD said:

"The God Delusion is an advocacy of the belief that there is no god..."

I thought it was an advocacy of the view that belief in gods is irrational. Admittedly it's been a while since I read it. Does TGD actually contain any positive statement that there is no god? The opening line of the video seems very odd to me.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

35. Comment #123438 by notsobad on February 7, 2008 at 7:03 am

I thought it was an advocacy of the view that belief in gods is irrational. Admittedly it's been a while since I read it. Does TGD actually contain any positive statement that there is no god? The opening line of the video seems very odd to me.

Yes, I found it strange too and contrary to what Dawkins normally says.

Other Comments by notsobad

36. Comment #123869 by Duffman6 on February 7, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Shmeezers, theres a wealth of theories on morality through an evolutionary perspective such as 'The Evolution of Morality' by Richard Joyce; 'Moral Minds' by Marc Hauser; 'Evolutionary origins of Morality' by Leonard D. Katz; and a summary by Richard Dawkins in chapter 6 of The God Delusion.

Time Magazine did a recent cover story of morality (December 3 2007) explaining why we feel a sense of right and wrong. Clearly no theology is needed, and no theology ever will be needed.

Other Comments by Duffman6

37. Comment #123892 by dkv on February 7, 2008 at 10:53 pm

The discussion on God was uncalled for.If millions believe in God then there must be some reason behind it.The greatest disappointment comes from the Science Vs. Religion debate.
Why to discuss religion in the first place..?
Actually such a debate exposes the inherent insufficiency of reason...
I believe that Religion can be explained from evolutionary point of view in a positive way without diluting the scientific argument.
By the way the first pendulum clock was invented for a church.. we can not deny the role of religion in the history of science.
Sometimes I feel the greatest question(who created the universe and how ) has been kept alive thorugh the religion... when actually there was no one and no reason to create !!!
We suprisingly never gave up the question atleast in the last 50000 years...What difference it would have made had we simply given up the question...!!??
We would have lived a like animals..
Religion served the evolutionary purpose for science... and unfortunately gene theory finds it difficult to digest...

Other Comments by dkv

38. Comment #124174 by krisking on February 8, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Does TGD actually contain any positive statement that there is no god?

Why should it? He has only every gone as far as to say that the existence of God is extremely improbably. In one of his talks he even gave his own score on a scale of 1 - 7....but it wasn't the extreme score!

Other Comments by krisking

39. Comment #124178 by krisking on February 8, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Can a scientist believe in the resurrection?

http://www.jamesgregory.org/tom_wright.php

Other Comments by krisking

40. Comment #124201 by Uhtred on February 8, 2008 at 6:10 pm

"Can a scientist believe in the resurrection?"

I guess a scientist can believe anything he or she wants to, but a belief is scientific only if it is supported by sensory and rational evidence.

Other Comments by Uhtred

41. Comment #124204 by Uhtred on February 8, 2008 at 6:24 pm

I wouldn't deny that in the past religion has played a role in the history of science, but in saying that, religion's role has been no more significant than that of any other artifact of human invention.
The thing is, religion no longer has any role to play whatsoever other than, perhaps, providing some sort of consolation and solace for those who continue to demand it from the universe.

Actually, what a poor poor thing religion has become.

Other Comments by Uhtred

42. Comment #124216 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 7:41 pm

I think the morality argument is being missed here. The point is that we have this fundamental sense of right and wrong. There really is no justification for this if we got here by slaughtering each other for millions of years (or whatever the story says), having concerned ourselves simply with passing our genes on. We could possibly have instituted such morals for the benefit that they offer us, but then there is no justification for giving them any importance beyond this. But I would wager that many atheists, just like many believers, truly believe that it is wrong, for example, to kill somebody in cold blood, or to scam someone out of their honestly earned income. I would wager that these atheists believe this not simply because they think such moral notions are important in order to keep peace in society, but because it is inherently wrong. This is the essence of the argument. Where did this moral sense - this moral intuition, as Margaret Sommerville emphasizes so much - come from? I don't think you can argue that it came out of the context of "survival of the fittest". But this is precisely what Darwinians must argue. It is neither here nor there that any particular atheist feels this moral sense to a greater extent than a believer in Christianity does. The point is that we ALL feel this moral sense, to a greater degree in certain cases, to a lesser degree in others. This is what must be explained, and Darwinism cannot do it.

I make no apology for repeating my idea in rebuttal of your comment, which may assist you:

The realisation by Chomsky (much developed by Pinker) that human babies are born with brains which have a 'universal grammar', before expression of it manifests in one particular (native) language, suggests to me that morality may have similar evolutionarily adapted origin.

If so, it is likely that there is a 'universal morality' embedded in our material brains in the same way as 'universal grammar' is embedded there. This embedded, evolutionarily developed 'universal morality' may then manifest itself (as with language) as a morality based on the more specific environmental and cultural influences (e.g. Japan as distinct from North Korea) of the place where the material brain engages with the world.

The foregoing, based as it is on evidence, is a reasonable candidate explanation of humankind's morality.

Would you not agree that this is more compelling than the notion that holy texts are the ultimate arbiters of what is right and wrong? If you disagree, pray explain your preference for certain 'holy codes' over others. Is it not the case that you bring to bear upon your chosen holy text an independent judgement of what is good and bad, quite independent of the text itself? Your decision to grant more power and authority to one 'moral lesson' in your holy text over another shows that you are, flat out, bringing your own moral values to the party.

You will notice that they are brought to any such party without any recourse whatsoever to the supernatural. Darwin is very much more in the moral picture than any notion of theism can possibly be.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

43. Comment #124226 by sarah95 on February 8, 2008 at 8:56 pm

the youtube version of this video that i uploaded has gotten almost 3,000 views in the less than 2 days after i uploaded it. i'd say the comments are about 3:1 with atheist ones in the majority.

Other Comments by sarah95

44. Comment #124230 by dkv on February 8, 2008 at 9:39 pm

[quote]He has only every gone as far as to say that the existence of God is extremely improbably.[/quote]
Extremely improbable doesnt translate into anything physically.There is no direct correaltion between Maths of probability and Physics.If we leave aside the God debate then I can show that Mathematically extreme improbability doesnt mean anything physically.

Consider N boxes with transcription "If you open the box then future will not be available"
The transcription can be either true or false..In absolute mathematical sense there is a 50% chance that the transcription is true for each box...
The chances that future will be available is (1-(1/2)^n).... the chances of not finding future increases exponentially with the number of boxes..
(you can perform this experiment at home.)
The probability doesnt translate into casuality.

If there is an unknown variable in the problem space of probability then at no stage we can define the absolute truth...We can only commit to a confidence level of truth and counter intuitive results are a definite possibility...

Therefore if God is ONLY highly improbable then it means nothing more than saying that since we have not see Him so far therefore the likelyhood of finding him in future is small.
The framework of Science is not only asking for the evidence of God but for large scale evidence of God within the constraints of lab...and in addition the definition of God is itself not understood properly.Thus making the debate unwanted within the framework of science.

Other Comments by dkv

45. Comment #124237 by TonyA on February 8, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Extremely improbable doesnt translate into anything physically.

Do you really think this way? If so, how can you ever rule out any absurdity at all? Even in your strange thinking model, can't you still recognize that the existence of god is about as likely as the existence of a dinosaur that sings Sinatra songs?

Other Comments by TonyA

46. Comment #124258 by dkv on February 8, 2008 at 11:51 pm

I gave a example to demonstrate the nature of highly improbable in mathematics when the event space is not fully known...
In the example above the chances of future not becoming available is very high but in reality this doesnt happen...(notice the difference between mathematics and physics)

Consider another example : In an urn N balls of unknown colors are kept... the observer is asked to find out the colors without directly observing them ...he is allowed to pick randomly from the urn and after each observation the ball is replaced in the closed urn.
Will the observer ever be able to tell the exact number of colors in the urn with 100% confidence?
How many attempts will ensure 100% success ?
The answer is infinite number of attempts will be required to say anything for sure even when the number of balls is just 2.
Probability is just probability nothing less nothing more..The observer can only attach a confidence level to his answer.

Another example : Lets conduct a virtual experiment with a die having infinite number of faces... The chances of getting 1 point or 6 point in an attempt tends to 0...however nothing stops the occurence of 1 or 6 point in the first attempt.

The "mathematical" improbability doesnt necessarily translate into casuality in "reality".
We can only wonder if an highly unlikely event occurs because we know probability ...but that doesnt Violate the mathematics. And how does it matter whether we are in tears to see the miracle of nature or sit quietly without any interest!!

The existence of God is debatable as long as we attribute the qualities as mentioned in book..i.e omnipresent , omnipotent, omniscient locally..
There is no literature to suggest that Gods or God carry those property locally in time ... As far as I know God tends to become omnipresent and/or omnipotent and/or omniscient over large period of time. He doesnt stop you from committing a sin today...but over a period of time he promises to take care of morality... Infact no one can deliver instant justice ...because the information of the crime itself travels at a finite speed.
============================================

Anyways ,
What if we debate the existence of Ghost?
Isnt it possible that Ghost are far more probable than God?

If you are interested in logic then is there any logical reason for you or anyone to take the next breath? Whats the point in continuing life if there is no inherent reason ?

A more fundmental problem of logic is whether life is logically relevant?
There are people who believe in the Ghosts..
Almost all Ghosts(or spirits) have the ability to influence the mind or the body of the host.

(The argument implicitly assumes existence of souls which has strange properties. It is as invisible as air.. and chances of direct observation are very small.)

Most of us are looking for a logical proof or a statement from an institution of good reputation...
If few people claim to have seen the ghost then most of us will not believe.

No institute is going to support the concept of Ghosts because science demands far too much to accept anything...
Only those events are discussed which can be reached physically in time or logically in mind.

(in physics there are quarks , gravitons which are logically predicted but are not observed.. some of the quarks can not be observed directly at all)

Question is can we reach to the ghost logically...?

Let us "believe" that Life is logically relevant.In other words there is a reason to take the next breath. Or there is a reason to search for the reason.

Evidence for logical irrelevance of life:
1.All life forms take birth , reproduce and die.
2.Life offers many reasons during the process however at the time of death all reasons stand void because the owner of the reason dies like a machine.
Consider a simple exmaple : Twins A and B are born to a mother.A dies after birth but B goes on to live a life and gives the theory of everything..but eventutally dies...
Do we observe any logically difference in the life history of A and B? Both die.
There are no reasons for B to live...
3.If B is a logical creature and discovers this fact at some point during his lifetime then there is no logical reasons for him to take the next breath.

Therefore we safely conclude that the life is logically irrelevant contradicting our "faith" that life is logically relevant...
However if life is logically irrelevant then life can not be derived logically...because death is certain...(as far as we know) and any attempt to
find reason is evolutionarily futile... (in other words search for reason extends beyond logic itself..if things or events can occur outside the reason then why should we deny the possibility of Ghost and on what basis?)

We might get tempted to argue that emotions are logically relevant but emotions are generated by chemicals in our brain and no emotions lasts forever. There is no reason to be happy in the first place because the pain is inevitable ....

But most of us do not commit suicide or suffer from depression...
Therefore the life must be logically relevant(atleast to logical creatures so that there is always some reason to take the next breath)...logical integrity can only be achieved if we assume there is a continuity of life... which means after death the physical body dies but the soul lives on.... and there is something to gain out of life.
Therefore souls are logically required to keep the life understandable.. if souls are required then Ghosts are also logically possible.

If life is logically irrelevant then there is no reason to search for the reason in the first place. Its like searching for scientific reason in homeopathic medicine when medicine has reasons outside logic...( 1 drop of poison is diluted in thosands of oceans and as the dilution increases the durg becomes more potent!!)
Making the existence of science a miracle in itself...
Without soul or continuity in life science is a miracle because it can not explain its own existence.

(I had posted this comment earlier but I dont know what happened to it..)

Other Comments by dkv

47. Comment #124261 by Styrer- on February 9, 2008 at 12:40 am

dkv

Thank You, but I am trying to get in this circus idea for changing, you tell me how, I will thank you for. Godless site and I know you will help me to please this, as I no longer atheist, I am not happy here so I can, of course, without problem simply do this, I am making to you my last ditch effort to find God.

Please help me to answer my question, however, will my God hate me forever? I hear all you choose to do so, you will stand before God as your adjudicator during Final Judgement and He will recall your failure to answer my question. Please no hell for you, my friend! So please answer my question.

Someone told me that I meantime find the Word of the Almighty, and be blessed with the promise that I may sit by His side in Heaven, you may find that your failure to show me the initial way and path is dictated by God as a failure to serve when you could. Is this true?, please and you may experience His eternal wrath through His separation of you from His presence.

Please help me, Wooter, ok yes, help to do what you can.

Ystrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

48. Comment #124266 by Steve Zara on February 9, 2008 at 1:23 am

There is no direct correaltion between Maths of probability and Physics

There is a deep connection between the maths of probability and physics. It is an essential part of quantum mechanics, and of thermodynamics.

The reason why scrambled eggs don't spontaneously unscramble is to do with entropy, which is connected to probability.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

49. Comment #124274 by TonyA on February 9, 2008 at 2:09 am

If you are interested in logic then is there any logical reason for you or anyone to take the next breath? Whats the point in continuing life if there is no inherent reason ?

People don't choose their birth. By the time people realize what the situation is, they're already invested in life. They've got friends, families, goals, responsibilities, etc. It's probably true that my life will be meaningless 10 million years down the road, but right now, at this moment, it matters a lot to me and those who care about me. I care about mortals. What kind of idiot wouldn't care about living, loving and responsibility in the absence of a god?

(I had posted this comment earlier but I dont know what happened to it..)

With apologies to The Spinal Tap, "On what day did God create wooter, and couldn't he have rested on that day too?"

Other Comments by TonyA

50. Comment #124278 by AllanW on February 9, 2008 at 2:26 am

Re; comment #124261

Nice one, Centurion :)

Other Comments by AllanW