I always read it. I just don't say much.

It is a simple poem about the question, why are we here and all the constant answers we are given yet never really accepted and to some extent confused by. And it isn't until the very end that we get our answer.

If you listen back to the beginning where he talks about
backing up his pc and sending off the HDD's back home to
Australia, you learn he is an Aussie. That and the comment above
that says, "from another Aussie" that's
also a good clue. This was a pretty cool clip. And yeah, that tool
who stole it got what he deserved. What a total tard. Oh well
hopefully Darwin's theory of evolution will help fix that
problem soon enough.

wow, what a load of airy fairy mumbo jumbo crap. Seriously can you talk more garbage than this or would you need a bigger horse to sit upon in order to do so?
And you say you have no agenda, of course you don't. How can anyone who comes across as a total arrogant, self righteous arse possibly have an agenda.
I mean you have a tone in your words are like that of a kiddy fiddler who is trying to condition some poor child into taking part in a rather disgusting evil act. Not to mention you also sound like a crazy hippy who has had one too many joints on your travels.

I seriously felt physically ill after reading all of your replies. You even sounded a lot like those who were in my grandparents pentacostal church. They were all fucking crazy fuckers who were down right scary mother fuckers you just wanted to run a long way away from. Either that or shoot them and put them out of their misery.

Oh and lastly, atheists if you hadn't noticed do not put any effort into proving god doesn't exist. It's up to you and your lot to prove that he does. And so far apart from the usually airy fairy rhetoric bullshit that you all seem to have memorised, none of you have ever come forth with a none subjective, utterly testable piece of evidence to date. I won't hold my breath in anticipation that you may one day provide such evidence, so until then please, either stay under you rock inside you bubble of ignorance, or come out into the world where the rest of us basque in the wonders of nature, science and the world around us.

Sorry to hear that sad news Roger. Sadly Leslie Neilson also passed away.

Again thanks heaps for coming on the show, Andrew and I thoroughly enjoyed doing it and maybe we could have you back on to get a follow up on how it all went with the movie.

Mare, thanks glad we could fill in the gap on your xmas list.

Ollie :)

You haven't really presented any real reason for not holding to the reductionist point of view other than to say that you don't agree with it and that there could be more to it than materialistic reductionism. Great so you are open to the idea of there being more than meets the eye when it comes to how the brain and consciousness works. We agree on something. But that is as far as we go on the subject. Andrew, myself and others hold to the idea that so far, from what we know, the brain is from all indications a result of chemical and electrical mixes within the brain. Not the chemical and electrical mixes within the brain and possible a soul as well or possibly anything else you could possibly imagine.
Most would agree with us on this point, and would only ever add to it something that could be proven with impirical evidence to also have an effect on the brain and the emergent consciousness.

Is there something else we are missing? Do you have some secret we are to have known about that would change our minds on the matter? Because if you do I am sure not only us, but the wider scientific community would love to hear it.
Until you do have that something extra special to show us, this is an utterly moot discussion.

You know it amazes me the amount of bullshit you lot come up with. This whole thread is nothing more than cock fight the likes of which no boxing arena has ever witnessed.

You all love to argue over who's comitted the most logical fallacies and who authoritary beats who's. You then follow this up by snaking you way around arguements and answers that by the time you read to the bottom of the thread you find yourself wondering if you can have your time all over again to go read something useful instead.

The way I see it, and this is regardless of the "pros" or the "amateurs" as well, is this. Sound arguments are in a way like logical absolutes, it doesn't matter if you are a Harvard Gradutate or you are grade 6 school leaver who is now a street sweeper, if the arguement you put forth is a valid one it is a valid one. There is no getting around it. Especially when it is more or less water tight(much like the lack of evidence for the existence of any claimed god is). And to sit there and say hey ever wondered why the pros don't take much notice of youtubers and their refutations is utterly ignorant and rather arrogant on your part Mr Finden.
Now what I would like to see from you lot, is actual action and solutions ot problems not philosphical debates or logical orgies. Actual discussions about how to solve some of the issues we face as a species.
All this arguing about the past and what might have been or could have been or possible definitely maybe might have been is an utter waste of time in my books. You can't change it, you can't fully disprove it nor prove it even. So why bother with it. There are far bigger fish to fry in this world and far more important things to work out than who's authoritary is being appealed this time around.

Questions of purpose like "why are we here" or "why am I here" are philosophical questions and nothing more. And I hate to say it, they do not count. They are utterly pointless, because until such time that we can get an answer, which I shall presume is not something that philosphy will ever answer and will end up being much bigger or quite possibly much less significant that we would have hoped, then these questions and many more like them that we ask throughout our daily lives are all rather pointless.
And lets face it, if we do come across and answer, the answer will need to be verified which is something that inevitably science will end up doing.

Besides we all know that certain philosophies became sciences in the end as they were able to be proven and tested and so on and so forth. I doubt very much that the same won't happen in this case.

I too had the same feeling that Andrew had regarding your last paragraph. If all this time you have only had a philosophical belief in a god, then why did you not say so. I may have missed it somewhere in the million and one posts by yourself and others that come to my iphone daily, so I apologise if that is the case.
And being a philosophical arguement makes the idea of a god both possible and impossible at the same time. And it would be a claim that can be made for any kind of entity that we can not detect nor see nor truly know the nature of, other than our supposed ideas.
Having read your last statement I fail to see how or why this conversation need go any further. The same goes for the discussion in the other various threads.
As for proof for the existence of entities that live outside of our own physical world, our reality if you will, we never said empirical evidence we just said give us another way. Unfortunately for you, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, the scientific method is very much like logical absolutes. It would seem to our limited minds that trying to think up another method that doesn't match that of the scientific one, especially in its very clear and straight down the line approach to evidence and testing etc, that it would be nigh on impossible to think of another way to do things.
I just wish you would admit that at the very least. You are after all human. With the same limitations on your mind that most of us have on average. But hey feel free to keep debating the endless debate as I am starting to call it.

Just quickly I have to say that Lennox's view that revelelation via the bible and as he puts it the word of god is/should be read with a fair amount of reason and even common sense. Which to me is what we would do with any written works. If a cook book says add tomatoes to a pot in order to make tomatoe soup is stands to reason and even common sense that you ough to add tomatoes to make the soup.
If the bible out lays certain moral and ethical rules, that stand up to reason and common sense as something worth doing and/or adopting then fine we do just that. Adopting such reason and common sense from where ever we might get it is how we have managed to get this far in our evolutionary stairway. Without such reason and common sense we'd most likely have wiped ourselves off the face of the planet.

As for Aunt Matilda, and science not being able to answer questions of purpose, think purpose for such grandios ideas as the universe just means we have a fate that can't be avoided and whatever happens happens. The analogy of the engine by Henry Ford is a little strange. The engine inevitebly turns a crankshaft. What that crank shaft is attached to is utterly and completely irrelevant. Only to say that the engines purpose is to turn the crank shaft and nothing more.

I would like to ask Andrew Finden, why it is that you seem unable to provide an answer for the question regarding methodology for proving that the none physical exists? I for one can not at all think of any other way of proving something other than the scientific method. But I am all ears on how you would do it. Please prove the none physical without using science. And if your answer you can't then please just accept that the none physical can't exist in this reality and you can not ever prove it can exist and that you accept you do not really know the answer or the cause.