I have been doing a lot of research lately, and have started to think that perhaps there is not enough evidence to support a belief in G-d. One of the biggest things stopping me from taking the next step and declaring myself an atheist is that I believe I have felt G-d's presence in the past. Would this alone be justification for believing in G-d? Could the feelings I felt all be imagined?

Can determinism be proven by reason alone? Or was it only discovered empirically?

Do graduate students really make contributions to philosophy? Or is philosophy only advanced by an elite few?

Parallel Lines: 1) I've been told that parallel lines never meet - except at infinity. 2) Also that a straight line is a circle of infinite radius. 3) Surely if you get two infinitely large circles such that they don't overlap, at their closest point they are straight (as per 2) and parallel yet must both meet (by 1) and not as per 3) - not overlapping. Any suggestions? (I'm confused!)

Asymmetrical Morality Hello, I would like to know if there are ethical frameworks that can at the same time consider “good” performing action X, and not consider “bad” not performing it. The above does not seem possible with utilitarian frameworks. To give one example, it strikes me as odd that while many people would consider devolving a part of one’s salary to help the poor a “good” thing, they wouldn’t say that not devolving it is “bad”. Good if you do, OK if you don’t ... Thanks in advance.

Hi, I'm writing about the Act-Omission idea within consequentialism. Is it the case that consequentialists would argue that there is no moral significance between an act or an omission if they cause the same consequences??? Therefore, one who carries out an action and causes a set of consequences is no different to one who causes the same set of consequences by omitting to perform an action?

Just how 'universal' is music? That seems to be a very broad question, but here's some background to clarify: In the past, there have been many different ways of creating music. The only real standard of pitch is the octave, which is two notes exactly one half or twice the others' frequency. Between that, there have been tons of different ways of dividing the octave (12-tone, just intonation, 19 tone, 31 tone, pitch bending etc.) which obviously resulted in some very different types of music. When I listen to Armenian duduk music, for example, it all sounds very similar to me, a combination of familiar western music scales and modes with slightly bent pitches. I presume that they have many different types of music within their own culture, as we do in the west, and as every culture probably does. So, would our music sound similar to someone unfamiliar with it, as a person from a small Asian or African village that had its own, old and untainted musical tradition. Would they be able to distinguish...

Hi. This is a question on the nature of Reality, or rather Actuality. I say Actuality, because I like the distinction that Kant makes between Appearances he calls Phenomena, and things in themselves he calls Noumena. Anyway he ends up saying we can never know the thing in itself, i.e. actuality, but only our experience of reality, i.e. appearances. What I would like to clear up is if there is a way to experience the thing in itself, or whether we have to accept on good faith that actuality exists independently of us, and that it stops with I think therefore I am. In short is there an answer to the sceptics? My question has been fueled by the book, _A Beginner's Guide to Reality_, by Jim Baggott, which ends in "it depends on what you believe", which doesn't really do it for me. Cheers, Pasquale

If a person were to be a created, a virtual reality person (such as a character in a Sims game, that "reacts" and "grows"), and this person was "downloaded" into an actual body, is that person considered "real?" Were they real before the download, or is a physical body part of the conception of real? Would you even be considered a legitimate person, since all of your "memories" could be considered "fake"?

Can one learn to be rational? How would this be done?