<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Richard Dawkins &#8212; The God Delusion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/</link>
	<description>Have faith in yourself</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:39:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: sidfaiwu</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-52796</link>
		<dc:creator>sidfaiwu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-52796</guid>
		<description>YourTube has a clip of &lt;a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8etMHn4P6g" rel="nofollow"&gt;Richard Dawkins appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show&lt;/a&gt; for anyone who is interested.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>YourTube has a clip of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8etMHn4P6g" rel="nofollow">Richard Dawkins appearance on Bill O&#8217;Reilly&#8217;s show</a> for anyone who is interested.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-36133</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-36133</guid>
		<description>Richard Dawkins is a genious in every sense of the word, and the way you are portraying him and trying to sum up his beliefs in 2 quotes I find apalling! If you go on to read about the child abuse it does not just say teaching these things is child abuse but i goes on to say means of which the children are being deprived of a good education and personally I think that they are being deprived of a portion of their life. The child abuse stems from telling children they must be good or they will bur and be tormented and tortured for the rest of their life and promising physical gold streets and physical mansions in the "spiritual" heaven if they are good. 

Please i encourage all who read this to frequently visit www.richarddawkins.net/home to see many interesting arguments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard Dawkins is a genious in every sense of the word, and the way you are portraying him and trying to sum up his beliefs in 2 quotes I find apalling! If you go on to read about the child abuse it does not just say teaching these things is child abuse but i goes on to say means of which the children are being deprived of a good education and personally I think that they are being deprived of a portion of their life. The child abuse stems from telling children they must be good or they will bur and be tormented and tortured for the rest of their life and promising physical gold streets and physical mansions in the &#8220;spiritual&#8221; heaven if they are good. </p>
<p>Please i encourage all who read this to frequently visit <a href="http://www.richarddawkins.net/home" rel="nofollow">http://www.richarddawkins.net/home</a> to see many interesting arguments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Your Father</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-14359</link>
		<dc:creator>Your Father</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:05:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-14359</guid>
		<description>err.. quick edit. 

"They can both consist of the same number of interconnected quantities of matter/energy/etc." 

should be:

They can both consist of the same quantities of interconnected matter/energy/etc.

...its late</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>err.. quick edit. </p>
<p>&#8220;They can both consist of the same number of interconnected quantities of matter/energy/etc.&#8221; </p>
<p>should be:</p>
<p>They can both consist of the same quantities of interconnected matter/energy/etc.</p>
<p>&#8230;its late</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Your Father</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-14358</link>
		<dc:creator>Your Father</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Oct 2006 08:03:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-14358</guid>
		<description>"The â€˜complexity is not a measureable thingâ€™ comment is, I think, a bit misguided. Complexity is defined as â€œThe quality or condition of being complexâ€, and complex is defined as â€œConsisting of interconnected or interwoven partsâ€. This means that the more complex something is, the more parts it consists of, allowing that the parts are interconnected. A cell is complex because it consists of many organelles that are interconnected. You are more complex, however, because you consist of a large quantity of cells that are interconnected, each one consisting of a large number of organelles that art interconnectedâ€¦"

I did not say complexity is not a measurable thing. I said complexity is an abstract term that is merely a perception. Good and Evil can be measured in much the same way. i.e. How many people ultimately benefit from something, how good feelings are, that sort of thing... Now you can measure good and evil and complexity all you want, and we can perceive them to be as real as we want, but they are real ONLY in that we perceive them that way. Break your definition of complexity down to the most basic level and a human is no more complex than a cement block. They can both consist of the same number of interconnected quantities of matter/energy/etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The â€˜complexity is not a measureable thingâ€™ comment is, I think, a bit misguided. Complexity is defined as â€œThe quality or condition of being complexâ€, and complex is defined as â€œConsisting of interconnected or interwoven partsâ€. This means that the more complex something is, the more parts it consists of, allowing that the parts are interconnected. A cell is complex because it consists of many organelles that are interconnected. You are more complex, however, because you consist of a large quantity of cells that are interconnected, each one consisting of a large number of organelles that art interconnectedâ€¦&#8221;</p>
<p>I did not say complexity is not a measurable thing. I said complexity is an abstract term that is merely a perception. Good and Evil can be measured in much the same way. i.e. How many people ultimately benefit from something, how good feelings are, that sort of thing&#8230; Now you can measure good and evil and complexity all you want, and we can perceive them to be as real as we want, but they are real ONLY in that we perceive them that way. Break your definition of complexity down to the most basic level and a human is no more complex than a cement block. They can both consist of the same number of interconnected quantities of matter/energy/etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Outsider</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-14344</link>
		<dc:creator>Outsider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-14344</guid>
		<description>Sorry for the delay in answering...  I'm a college student and it's midterm season, which doesn't leave much time for, well, anything.

The 'complexity is not a measureable thing' comment is, I think, a bit misguided.  Complexity is defined as "The quality or condition of being complex", and complex is defined as "Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts".  This means that the more complex something is, the more parts it consists of, allowing that the parts are interconnected.  A cell is complex because it consists of many organelles that are interconnected.  You are more complex, however, because you consist of a large quantity of cells that are interconnected, each one consisting of a large number of organelles that art interconnected...

You see where I'm going with this?  You want a measure of complexity, simply measure (a) how many interconnected parts are within that thing, and (b) how interconnected they are.  Simple, quantifiable, and logical.  Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with how you see things;  your body is complex, even if you don't know it is.

In response to " Why then would a complex universe need a complex god? and what makes you think he created the universe for us? ", I don't think that the universe _requires_ a complex god.  You're thinking I'm an ID wingnut;  I understand the process, and realize that the _requirement_ simply doesn't exist.  But, you have to admit, in a universe of infinite complexity, the _possibility_ exists.  Now, the probablity is up for question.  You would put the probablity of a being of infinite (or approaching) complexity as minute.  I'd put it at about the same as DNA spontaneously forming.  (That's not to say I don't think that DNA spontaneously formed...  It didn't, quite, but the process is pretty well explained by Evolution and such.)  

In other words, I'm not saying that because our universe exists, God has to exist.  I'm saying that, with the level of complexity in our universe, it's a definite possibility.

Now, after all that, it really comes down to a gut feeling.  Really.  Because, in the end, we simply do not have enough evidence to go on.  Either pro or con, neither side can say for certain, and all you have are hunches and circular reasoning.  So, I follow my hunch that says a God exists, and He cares.  You follow your hunch that he doesn't either exist or care. (It'd be kinda hard to care if you don't exist, right?  :)  )

And what about it being a defense mechanism?  Sure, it could be.  It could also be that your refusal to see God as being a possibilty is also a defense mechanism.  You don't want your actions to be judged by anything other than yourself.  Having something that is bigger, more powerful, and infintely wiser than you trying to tell you what to do?  I mean, who wants to answer to someone else in everything they do?  Hell, not even me!  Especially when that authority is always so damn sure of itself...  So, instead, you deny your own 'hunch' on such a basic level as to not even realise it is there.

I'm not saying that that is the case.  But it's as logical as saying that my hunch is simply a fear of death run amok.  Both are possible.  You have to choose what you believe; it cannot be proven.  Hence it being _believe_, not _know_.

You can choose not to believe, too.  But that does not say "God doesn't exist."  That says "I don't care if God exists or not."  If you say God does not exist, you have a belief.  One that is just as valid, IMHO, as saying He does.  The only thing I object to is stating that "God does not exist" is not a belief.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry for the delay in answering&#8230;  I&#8217;m a college student and it&#8217;s midterm season, which doesn&#8217;t leave much time for, well, anything.</p>
<p>The &#8216;complexity is not a measureable thing&#8217; comment is, I think, a bit misguided.  Complexity is defined as &#8220;The quality or condition of being complex&#8221;, and complex is defined as &#8220;Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts&#8221;.  This means that the more complex something is, the more parts it consists of, allowing that the parts are interconnected.  A cell is complex because it consists of many organelles that are interconnected.  You are more complex, however, because you consist of a large quantity of cells that are interconnected, each one consisting of a large number of organelles that art interconnected&#8230;</p>
<p>You see where I&#8217;m going with this?  You want a measure of complexity, simply measure (a) how many interconnected parts are within that thing, and (b) how interconnected they are.  Simple, quantifiable, and logical.  Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with how you see things;  your body is complex, even if you don&#8217;t know it is.</p>
<p>In response to &#8221; Why then would a complex universe need a complex god? and what makes you think he created the universe for us? &#8220;, I don&#8217;t think that the universe _requires_ a complex god.  You&#8217;re thinking I&#8217;m an ID wingnut;  I understand the process, and realize that the _requirement_ simply doesn&#8217;t exist.  But, you have to admit, in a universe of infinite complexity, the _possibility_ exists.  Now, the probablity is up for question.  You would put the probablity of a being of infinite (or approaching) complexity as minute.  I&#8217;d put it at about the same as DNA spontaneously forming.  (That&#8217;s not to say I don&#8217;t think that DNA spontaneously formed&#8230;  It didn&#8217;t, quite, but the process is pretty well explained by Evolution and such.)  </p>
<p>In other words, I&#8217;m not saying that because our universe exists, God has to exist.  I&#8217;m saying that, with the level of complexity in our universe, it&#8217;s a definite possibility.</p>
<p>Now, after all that, it really comes down to a gut feeling.  Really.  Because, in the end, we simply do not have enough evidence to go on.  Either pro or con, neither side can say for certain, and all you have are hunches and circular reasoning.  So, I follow my hunch that says a God exists, and He cares.  You follow your hunch that he doesn&#8217;t either exist or care. (It&#8217;d be kinda hard to care if you don&#8217;t exist, right?  :)  )</p>
<p>And what about it being a defense mechanism?  Sure, it could be.  It could also be that your refusal to see God as being a possibilty is also a defense mechanism.  You don&#8217;t want your actions to be judged by anything other than yourself.  Having something that is bigger, more powerful, and infintely wiser than you trying to tell you what to do?  I mean, who wants to answer to someone else in everything they do?  Hell, not even me!  Especially when that authority is always so damn sure of itself&#8230;  So, instead, you deny your own &#8216;hunch&#8217; on such a basic level as to not even realise it is there.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not saying that that is the case.  But it&#8217;s as logical as saying that my hunch is simply a fear of death run amok.  Both are possible.  You have to choose what you believe; it cannot be proven.  Hence it being _believe_, not _know_.</p>
<p>You can choose not to believe, too.  But that does not say &#8220;God doesn&#8217;t exist.&#8221;  That says &#8220;I don&#8217;t care if God exists or not.&#8221;  If you say God does not exist, you have a belief.  One that is just as valid, IMHO, as saying He does.  The only thing I object to is stating that &#8220;God does not exist&#8221; is not a belief.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Your Father</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-13713</link>
		<dc:creator>Your Father</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:01:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-13713</guid>
		<description>"To be honest, I donâ€™t think this is true. But itâ€™s logically consistent. Wherever God came from, the second part is how I think Heâ€™d deal with us; He created our world, so leaving us to grow up, grow old, and then die fruitlessly would be simply irresponsible."

While I agree that as far as we know, it may very well be possible for a being with understanding far surpassing our own to create a universe, but there is no reason to believe that we were created this way. There is also no reason to believe that such a creator knew we would arise in such a universe, or if it exists, knows of our existence. 

After all, the beginning of life on earth was more than likely a product of chance, and the universe is so vast that it may be likely that life would occur in one form or another, but it is not guaranteed.

If something created our universe, and we came into existence through evolution (which we did, there really is no arguing that point), it stands to reason that it is not irresponsible to just let us die, but merely a logical step in the game of life and evolution. It does not stand to reason that a god needs to be responsible, and even if it was that it would stand to gain from our complexity.

"That is also why Iâ€™m willing to accept your belief that god does not exist as a possibility; your gut tells you different than mine tells me."

I'm glad you're willing to see all possibilities, and I am as well, but consider this: It is perfectly logical that these "gut feelings" about god or "feeling god's presence" are a natural defense mechanism to keep up stable. I mean, the real reason we fear death in the first place is because we need to for survival. It stands to reason that those that fear death more survive more, and it also stands to reason that such intense fear may lead to mental instability, which is why such a god feeling may have arisen in our genes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;To be honest, I donâ€™t think this is true. But itâ€™s logically consistent. Wherever God came from, the second part is how I think Heâ€™d deal with us; He created our world, so leaving us to grow up, grow old, and then die fruitlessly would be simply irresponsible.&#8221;</p>
<p>While I agree that as far as we know, it may very well be possible for a being with understanding far surpassing our own to create a universe, but there is no reason to believe that we were created this way. There is also no reason to believe that such a creator knew we would arise in such a universe, or if it exists, knows of our existence. </p>
<p>After all, the beginning of life on earth was more than likely a product of chance, and the universe is so vast that it may be likely that life would occur in one form or another, but it is not guaranteed.</p>
<p>If something created our universe, and we came into existence through evolution (which we did, there really is no arguing that point), it stands to reason that it is not irresponsible to just let us die, but merely a logical step in the game of life and evolution. It does not stand to reason that a god needs to be responsible, and even if it was that it would stand to gain from our complexity.</p>
<p>&#8220;That is also why Iâ€™m willing to accept your belief that god does not exist as a possibility; your gut tells you different than mine tells me.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad you&#8217;re willing to see all possibilities, and I am as well, but consider this: It is perfectly logical that these &#8220;gut feelings&#8221; about god or &#8220;feeling god&#8217;s presence&#8221; are a natural defense mechanism to keep up stable. I mean, the real reason we fear death in the first place is because we need to for survival. It stands to reason that those that fear death more survive more, and it also stands to reason that such intense fear may lead to mental instability, which is why such a god feeling may have arisen in our genes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Your Father</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-13709</link>
		<dc:creator>Your Father</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:38:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-13709</guid>
		<description>The problem I see with your argument, is that you quantify complexity and associate it with the nature of the universe. Complexity is an abstract term used to describe a degree of chaos or level of difficulty, not a concrete mathematical formula describing any real phenomena. It is just like the human concepts of good and evil. Nothing in nature is inherently good or evil. There are no evil molecules or forces. It's just the way we perceive things.

There are many abstract terms like this. Let's take sexy for example. There are sexy things out there, and things sexier than us. Extend this logic and you must conclude that there is something out there that is infinitely sexy. Can I then call this god and use my logic to as proof of concept? What does sexiness or complexity have to do with our origins?

In the case of complexity, it is fact that we evolved from less complex organisms, which is a perfectly reasonable and does not require god. Why then would a complex universe need a complex god? and what makes you think he created the universe for us?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem I see with your argument, is that you quantify complexity and associate it with the nature of the universe. Complexity is an abstract term used to describe a degree of chaos or level of difficulty, not a concrete mathematical formula describing any real phenomena. It is just like the human concepts of good and evil. Nothing in nature is inherently good or evil. There are no evil molecules or forces. It&#8217;s just the way we perceive things.</p>
<p>There are many abstract terms like this. Let&#8217;s take sexy for example. There are sexy things out there, and things sexier than us. Extend this logic and you must conclude that there is something out there that is infinitely sexy. Can I then call this god and use my logic to as proof of concept? What does sexiness or complexity have to do with our origins?</p>
<p>In the case of complexity, it is fact that we evolved from less complex organisms, which is a perfectly reasonable and does not require god. Why then would a complex universe need a complex god? and what makes you think he created the universe for us?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Outsider</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-13590</link>
		<dc:creator>Outsider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:57:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-13590</guid>
		<description>Sorry, I'd rather you think I'm overly polite than ignoring you.  I am Canadian, you know...  ;)


Hmm...  How do I answer these questions?  Nominally, I am a Baha'i*.  That, however, really isn't what you're asking.  What you are asking is do I believe in God, and why?  Well, I do, but the why is a much harder question than it seems.  You could look at my background, but that will only confuse you worse.  (I was born into a free-spirituality house, was raised and trained to be a scientist, and married a pagan/Wiccan/ex-Catholic.  Talk about a mixed background!)  I could tell you about my experiences as a young adult, navigating the world of spirituality to finally come to where I am now, but that will tell you why I am what I am, not why I believe.

The honest truth is that I believe in God because my gut tells me that it's the right assumption to make.  The assumptions that I make are few, but here they are:

1) Humans are very complex, but they can only understand things that are on the same order of complexity as them (or less)

2) The universe has effectively infinite complexity, so much so that I will never be able to assimilate even one dimension of it completely.
2a) There exists things in this universe that are much more complex than humans.  This includes intelligences that go well beyond us.


The existence of God is a logical consequence of the two thoughts above.  If humans are complex, but there are more complex things in this universe then us, then the same thing should apply to them, right?  Extend that logic all the way up, and you'll end up with a being (or set of beings) with a complexity approaching infinity.  God is, as far as I can tell, infinite and existing beyond time and space, as well as pervading both.  This does not mean that He (for a lack of a better pronoun) really _is_ infinite, but that He approaches infinity closely enough for me to assume it from my very finite perspective.  It does not mean that God has to exist; there can easily be a limit to the ability of this simple equation to be 'scaled up'.  It does, however, allow for a logical place for a being of God's complexity.

Image the following scenario:  (For the record, this is not what I believe, just something that I've thought up that is logically consistent.)  A being with an unending life (I'm thinking far future, perhaps human mass-mind, maybe something else...) that continues to grow in mental complexity throughout its life.  Eventually, this being becomes complex enough to contain everything within the universe.  Well, with that much mental ability, what do you do?  I don't think it would be a great leap to create a new universe with that much mental power...  In theory, it would even be possible to create your own, original universe.  (If you can remove yourself from time, you are not constrained by cause-effect relationships.)  

So, you create your own little universe.  Maybe you recreate the universe you grew up in. Whatever the case, that will be a massive undertaking, but it's not enough.  Inside that universe, complexity arises (in the form of life...) Of course, being a mental power unlike anything else, you will have known that would happen, and so you plan for it. You take care of your children, even possibly taking them into yourself at some point in their lifespan.  (At death, perhaps, when they've grown into the most complex mental beings you can get...)

This continues, feeding more complexity into you until everything in the universe is part of you.  Repeat as neccessary.

To be honest, I don't think this is true.  But it's logically consistent.  Wherever God came from, the second part is how I think He'd deal with us; He created our world, so leaving us to grow up, grow old, and then die fruitlessly would be simply irresponsible.  And, as a side benefit for God, he gets to help us towards becoming as complex as He is, at which point we can add our intelligence to his, increasing his complexity, mental ability, and (probably) happiness.

So, in short, I believe in an afterlife because it is a directly logical consequence of an infinite creator being (as any being that is powerful enough to create the whole of our existence would also most likely be a responsible being as well).  I believe in God mostly because I have a gut feeling that His existence is more likely than His non-existence (but whether or not that gut feeling is influenced by my belief in an unending gradient of complexity in this universe, I don't know). Everything else is derived logically from that gut feeling, though, which is why it is belief and not certainty.  That is also why I'm willing to accept your belief that god does not exist as a possibility; your gut tells you different than mine tells me.

* If you want more information on the Baha'i faith, http://www.bahai.org/ would be a good place to start.  I'm not as much a practicing Baha'i anymore, but I still follow most of the tenants.  Feel free to ask anything you really want; Iâ€™ll give you the best answers I can.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, I&#8217;d rather you think I&#8217;m overly polite than ignoring you.  I am Canadian, you know&#8230;  ;)</p>
<p>Hmm&#8230;  How do I answer these questions?  Nominally, I am a Baha&#8217;i*.  That, however, really isn&#8217;t what you&#8217;re asking.  What you are asking is do I believe in God, and why?  Well, I do, but the why is a much harder question than it seems.  You could look at my background, but that will only confuse you worse.  (I was born into a free-spirituality house, was raised and trained to be a scientist, and married a pagan/Wiccan/ex-Catholic.  Talk about a mixed background!)  I could tell you about my experiences as a young adult, navigating the world of spirituality to finally come to where I am now, but that will tell you why I am what I am, not why I believe.</p>
<p>The honest truth is that I believe in God because my gut tells me that it&#8217;s the right assumption to make.  The assumptions that I make are few, but here they are:</p>
<p>1) Humans are very complex, but they can only understand things that are on the same order of complexity as them (or less)</p>
<p>2) The universe has effectively infinite complexity, so much so that I will never be able to assimilate even one dimension of it completely.<br />
2a) There exists things in this universe that are much more complex than humans.  This includes intelligences that go well beyond us.</p>
<p>The existence of God is a logical consequence of the two thoughts above.  If humans are complex, but there are more complex things in this universe then us, then the same thing should apply to them, right?  Extend that logic all the way up, and you&#8217;ll end up with a being (or set of beings) with a complexity approaching infinity.  God is, as far as I can tell, infinite and existing beyond time and space, as well as pervading both.  This does not mean that He (for a lack of a better pronoun) really _is_ infinite, but that He approaches infinity closely enough for me to assume it from my very finite perspective.  It does not mean that God has to exist; there can easily be a limit to the ability of this simple equation to be &#8217;scaled up&#8217;.  It does, however, allow for a logical place for a being of God&#8217;s complexity.</p>
<p>Image the following scenario:  (For the record, this is not what I believe, just something that I&#8217;ve thought up that is logically consistent.)  A being with an unending life (I&#8217;m thinking far future, perhaps human mass-mind, maybe something else&#8230;) that continues to grow in mental complexity throughout its life.  Eventually, this being becomes complex enough to contain everything within the universe.  Well, with that much mental ability, what do you do?  I don&#8217;t think it would be a great leap to create a new universe with that much mental power&#8230;  In theory, it would even be possible to create your own, original universe.  (If you can remove yourself from time, you are not constrained by cause-effect relationships.)  </p>
<p>So, you create your own little universe.  Maybe you recreate the universe you grew up in. Whatever the case, that will be a massive undertaking, but it&#8217;s not enough.  Inside that universe, complexity arises (in the form of life&#8230;) Of course, being a mental power unlike anything else, you will have known that would happen, and so you plan for it. You take care of your children, even possibly taking them into yourself at some point in their lifespan.  (At death, perhaps, when they&#8217;ve grown into the most complex mental beings you can get&#8230;)</p>
<p>This continues, feeding more complexity into you until everything in the universe is part of you.  Repeat as neccessary.</p>
<p>To be honest, I don&#8217;t think this is true.  But it&#8217;s logically consistent.  Wherever God came from, the second part is how I think He&#8217;d deal with us; He created our world, so leaving us to grow up, grow old, and then die fruitlessly would be simply irresponsible.  And, as a side benefit for God, he gets to help us towards becoming as complex as He is, at which point we can add our intelligence to his, increasing his complexity, mental ability, and (probably) happiness.</p>
<p>So, in short, I believe in an afterlife because it is a directly logical consequence of an infinite creator being (as any being that is powerful enough to create the whole of our existence would also most likely be a responsible being as well).  I believe in God mostly because I have a gut feeling that His existence is more likely than His non-existence (but whether or not that gut feeling is influenced by my belief in an unending gradient of complexity in this universe, I don&#8217;t know). Everything else is derived logically from that gut feeling, though, which is why it is belief and not certainty.  That is also why I&#8217;m willing to accept your belief that god does not exist as a possibility; your gut tells you different than mine tells me.</p>
<p>* If you want more information on the Baha&#8217;i faith, <a href="http://www.bahai.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bahai.org/</a> would be a good place to start.  I&#8217;m not as much a practicing Baha&#8217;i anymore, but I still follow most of the tenants.  Feel free to ask anything you really want; Iâ€™ll give you the best answers I can.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Your Father</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-13299</link>
		<dc:creator>Your Father</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:22:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-13299</guid>
		<description>No, I demand an answer now!! =P

Nice to know I'll get an answer in a few days, but you certainly don't need to ask my permission.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, I demand an answer now!! =P</p>
<p>Nice to know I&#8217;ll get an answer in a few days, but you certainly don&#8217;t need to ask my permission.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Outsider</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-13294</link>
		<dc:creator>Outsider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:53:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/10/16/richard-dawkins-the-god-delusion/#comment-13294</guid>
		<description>Your Father, I think that this will take a bit.  I'd rather not give you a flippant answer, but instead, take a bit of time to answer.  A few days perhaps.  If that is ok with you?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your Father, I think that this will take a bit.  I&#8217;d rather not give you a flippant answer, but instead, take a bit of time to answer.  A few days perhaps.  If that is ok with you?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
