Samkhya

You misunderstand my analogy of the house. Yes, house is just a name, but it is not the point. The name house points to something real and definite. It does not point to anything. But I have shown that the name goes on to apply even when the thing named undergoes changes. I attempted to show that a man can keep its physical identity (its likeness with himself) without necessarily having a soul. To explain the identity of the man by a soul is a lazy and unscientific explanation. Life sciences are bringing the answer without resorting to the soul.

In spite of all these renovations, at each step, the house has remained a house and could be recognized as such. It had a door, walls, windows, a top, rooms, etc... It remained ESSENTIALLY the same, though minor details have changed. Likewise, the body remains ESSENTIALLY the same in spite of the change of chemicals, and so because of chemical, biological and organic processes which control how waste products are rejected and how new products are used to preserve the body. The body is like a machine... My point is that what makes a house a house remains unchanged, but little changes can occur to some extent. Especially little changes which do not occur at the same time.

I have no reason to suppose that matter has a beginning. And I have a reason to suppose that matter is eternal: the reason is that this hypothesis is simpler. In fact, if matter has a beginning, this raises new questions: what existed before? And how did matter come into existence? On the contrary, if we hold that matter is eternal, we avoid these questions. But God too is eternal.

I don't say that man is just chemicals. All that I say is that you defend the soul with poor arguments. The chemicals of the body constantly change but the STRUCTURE remains there. It's like... if this year you replace the door of your house. The next year you replace the windows. The materials have changed, but the structure has remained the same.

In my opinion, the soul is created by matter, but once created, the soul does not depend on matter for its existence. It's like: you come from your mother, but even when your mother has passed away, you still exist. You don't need your mother to exist. It's the same thing with matter and the soul. Matter is the mother of the soul. But the soul goes on existing without the help of matter.

Why do you suppose that the universe has to come into existence? Can't it exist from all eternity? As to the appearance of living organisms, ask scientists. Do a google search and choose scientific websites. But the most questionable part of your message is the "why". Why must there be a why? Why do you assume that there is a cosmic purpose? In my opinion, matter (prakriti) was not created by God (Ishwara). Prakriti does not exist for a purpose. Ishwara is the Lord, but she has limited powers. The goal is to get free from the bondage of matter and to unite with Ishwara.

Yes, chemicals can have influence on whether I go for a walk or not. But it is not the point. When I go for a walk, the chemical processes in my body undergo some changes. For instance, if I get a new memory while walking, the chemistry of my brain will change. """ Who handles the children makes NO difference to the physical and chemical compounds of the body. All this is nonsense explaination. """ YES it makes a difference at the level of chemical processes, processes for which new chemicals are not necessarily required. In other words, the chemicals present in the body behave in a new way as a result of external influences. Here's a description of chaotic systems: http://membrane.com/chaos/sidd.html My opinion is that man is one of these chaotic systems.

««« You are the ignorant one here, making your own assumptions and false beliefs YET have guts to come and questions others as if you are a great Buddha. »»» You think you are justified just because you have not met someone with the answers. It is merely by chance that you have not been disproved.

I realize that I did not make my point perfectly clear, because English is not my mother language. I will try to explain better: The environment of the two twins is not PERFECTLY identical, even if we say, for practical purposes, that it is the same environment. It is just ROUGHLY true. Suppose that, one day, one of the twins goes for a walk with the father whereas the other one remains at home with the mother. They will not live the same thing. The differentiation begins at birth: suppose one of the twins is taken care of by one nurse whereas the other one is taken care of by another nurse. They won't have exactly the same experiences. But, could you say, the difference between their experiences is very little whereas the differences between the behavior of the two twins is big. I reply that a little difference can result in a big difference in some kinds of systems. I am not sure of how they call it in English. In French they are called «chaotiques».

""" when something is done, there is a doer. """ And why something happens, must there be a "happener"? It makes no sense. Physical events happen, and there is no need of a creator. Even if we say that something is made, all that it means is that there is or there are some cause. This cause need not be a person or a supernatural being or even a unique thing. It may be a set of natural forces.

The question: «who made men out of chemicals» is unscientific. It is a hollow question, a question that prevents research. The real question, the question that leads to new discoveries, is: HOW were men made out of chemicals.

««« 2. WHY, even so a person born as twins - genetically similar and grow up in the same environment, get same educations etc can have two different Consciousness? »»» Twins are not PERFECTLY identical. They do not undergo exactly the same influences. Suppose one twin is with the mother and the other one with the father. They do not live exactly the same thing. Suppose the two twins are not in the same classrom. They are taught by two different teachers. So they undergo different influences. Your statement: «grow up in the same environment» is not true in an absolute sense. As to the rest, you are arguing from ignorance.

But free will does not exist. Natural forces and laws shape our behavior, along with a bit of chance. There remains no room for a conscious will which rules over matter. Think about that: as time goes on, science disovers more and more forces which act upon man and control his behavior. As time goes on, it becomes less and less reasonable to believe in free will. Therefore the concept of hell does not apply, unless God is a fiend. But the concept of salvation still makes sense.

I know a scholar on Hinduism who says that the book can't be as old as you claim... The book was presumably written between 1700 BCE and 1200 BCE

Don't forget Nepal. :-)