I think apples are great. Why is it that they fit into my hand so easily? I don't even need to climb a tree to get one as they eventually fall to the ground (by the way I work in the building trade and I also think trees are great, timber is just sooo useful). Take a biro - I know some guy somewhere designed it and then made it and it works perfectly. I just can't help thinking that with an open mind I would be foolish not to think that a lot of nature's produce is far too perfectly designed to be a coincidence -- am I being naive?

Is a computer conceivable that would cut down on Philosophers' work by immediately identifying logic mistakes in arguments? For example: you enter "The Ontological argument for God" or "David Hume's argument against Inductive Reasoning" (or, for that matter, scan in the entire text of Plato's Republic) into the machine, and it immediately uses its programming (which tells it to watch out for contradiction, and all those other logic laws, etc.) and spits out the mistakes in reasoning. Is the problem with this that it would be too difficult to program, or that the laws of logic are under respectable attack?

Am I correct in thinking that vibrations in the air are just one cause of sound, and that really sounds are what are experienced? So for example under this definition of sound, ringing in the ears is included. Equally then, that sights can be caused by light bouncing off objects but also by the imagination? Can I draw the conclusion then that there are an equal number of sounds/sights/tastes/smells/feelings that have ever existed, than have ever been seen/heard/tasted/smelled/felt? The tree that falls in the woods with no one in it makes no sound at all (but plenty of vibrations)?

As I see it, there is not a single person on the planet who can prove or disprove the existence of God. If there is no provable God and/or afterlife then there can be no better hope for anything beyond the grave than what religion espouses. If there is a God however, then the rewards for correct behavior are well defined. Why then would the rational man NOT believe in some sort of supreme divine being if there is no proof either way?

When I studied philosophy, all the professors I had held the same views about religion -- that "god-talk" was "cognitively meaningless." I recall reading philosophers like Flew, Smart, and Mackie on this. It was my understanding at the time (I attended NYU in the 1960s) that major academic philosophers in the U.S., the U.K., and the other English-speaking countries saw philosophy as logical (or linguistic) analysis and held these views as well. Have such philosophers come to see religion differently over the past forty years?

To what extent do philosophers, or people who think deeply about an issue, have a responsibility to some kind of direct action, especially in cases like climate change where they perceive a significant threat to the future of humanity?

When someone sees a wrong in society, they have a choice to act. A wrong could be anything a person deems as an inappropriate action. For example, if you see someone being robbed, you can either walk away, or do something (e.g. try to stop the robber or call the police). That example is pretty clear cut. The robber is breaking the law. But what if the witnessed action isn't against the law? For a second example, if you witness someone acting rude to a passenger on a subway, and maybe that action is saying a racial slur to another passenger. The choice then is to either say something and stand up for what you think is wrong or quietly go back to reading your paper. Some people I've talked to say it's not a choice to act, it's your duty to act. For a third example, a citizen feeling a public official has wronged society (e.g. congress has passed a questionable law). The choice is to say something (e.g. write a letter, make a phone call) or just quietly keep to yourself. The question is, when...

I am not here to be boastful or arrogant, but here is the thing: if I walk down the street and see someone "checking-me-out", is it morally wrong for me to feel flattered because of this?

If you were to build an introductory philosophy course for community college kids, would you choose to focus more on the philosophers and their theories or would you focus more on philosophical questions (what is being, is there a god, is there a soul). Which do you think would be more effective for struggling or non-traditional learners?

Would humans effectively eliminate most emotions given sufficient rationality? In other words, if humans became highly rational creatures then would we become less emotional?