Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[blood_pardon]

so far, nobody has brought in a different mechanism than CHANCE for

- the existence of the universe
- the finetuning of the constants i mentioned
- DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.

Actually we have. You don't read much, do you?

So what are they:

1.?
2.?
3?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

1. The unverse doesn't need a mechanism to come into being as there is no evidence it has ever come into being at all.
2. There's no finetuning.
3. Several hypotheses on abiogenesis, evolution, evolution, evolution.

There, that was quite simple.
Please go read a wikipedia article.

I also like to point out that "ii's all chance" is something dreamt up by apologists, so I suggest you take those silly one-liners and put them in the bullshit-bin where they belong. The best thing of this all is that these questions have all been answered in the first few pages of the thread.

As Story said, you just need to stop fighting it and dare to admit that there is a possibility you might be wrong.

I've been through this very process, it's not very nice. It's painful and scary to a degree you could not imagine. Interestingly enough, I still managed to remain cool and composed, despite all these rushing emotions. It's not the kind of pain you fear or even a fear you'd fear. It becomes an addiction, an obsession and evolves into throes of emotion that can lead to atheism, but usually doesn't.

Very familiar.
It's painful and it makes you desperate. It's kind of like a really, really bad breakup. To speak with the words of Brian May: It can make you plead and scream and crawl. All you do is hope beyond hope that things will turn out alright.

For people who value honesty above all else, the only way out is when something breaks inside you, and you realize that you can actually be wrong. You'd feel exposed and afraid, but peace of mind sets in, as if you got over this bad relationship. That's when the healing can begin.

 

[borrofburi]

Out of curiosity, have you ever read When it was Dark?

Him or me? I have not... Worth my time?

In any case, such a demand renders Christianity unfalsifiable. Such remains would have disintegrated completely by this point, as no special care was taken towards preservation. Even if they were found there is no way to conclusively prove their origin.

Unfalsifiability is a sign of extreme weakness in an idea.

Even if they *had* been preserved it would be IMPOSSIBLE to identify them as actually jesus. It's not like his DNA was sequenced and printed in the bible.

 

[Japhia888]

Japhia, tell me the difference between saying "God did it" and "A magical entity done it with it's powerful magic".

no difference. the most marvellous magic however would be, if absolutely nothing were the cause of our universe. Now. THAT would be REAL magic. :!:

 

[Japhia888]

But you've hit the nail on the head. You can't test for god with what we know of this universe, because god is theoretically not in this universe. Sometimes you just have to accept that things may not be knowable.

Were all things immediately knowable by us, wouldn't that make us god, and the assumption a kind of hubris?

That is true. Absolute knowledge , nobody has. But i think , the evidence of nature, religion, and philosophy are enough to lead to God as the most convincing explanation of our existence.

 

[Japhia888]

Even when I am perfectly open minded to something (and there's no egoism involved), it still takes a LONG time and a LOT of effort to convince me. The reason for this is not necessarily dogmatism or stubbornness; rather there are two primary reasons conversations do NOT affect immediate change (at least in me): (1) just because I can't refute position A in the moment does not make position A correct (2) just because I can't refute position A does not make position A correct (i.e. others might be able to refute it, so I have to do plenty of research).

Hmmmm... but would you say that losing a debate on something that is supported by multitude of people, research, evidence and arguments that shoots down all of your rebuttals and discredits all the research you do against the concept wouldn't make you slightly doubt your position, no matter how ridiculous it sounded to you?

that is a argument of authority, and argumentum ad populum. I could make the exact same argument, based on the numerous theist scientists, and the shere uncountable number of people around the globe, and of all ages, which do and did believe in God. That does not lead anywhere.

 

[Andiferous]

Sometimes you just have to accept that things may not be knowable.

What makes you think it cannot be known?

Yeah I know, here we go again, but your assertion still has nothing to support it. Since you're using it as an argument here, then support the assertion that there are things that are impossible to know.

Note: I am not agreeing with Japhia, only aiming to expose a weakness in the quoted text.

I know you don't believe this. Can you tell me the events of every place in the world on August 12, 1400 BC?

But you've hit the nail on the head. You can't test for god with what we know of this universe, because god is theoretically not in this universe. Sometimes you just have to accept that things may not be knowable.

Were all things immediately knowable by us, wouldn't that make us god, and the assumption a kind of hubris?

That is true. Absolute knowledge , nobody has. But i think , the evidence of nature, religion, and philosophy are enough to lead to God as the most convincing explanation of our existence.

See, this is where you've made a choice, I suppose. Do you still accept that things are unknowable, or have you just transferred that problem onto god? It's scary to think that we're all alone, and that something or someone somewhere doesn't have all the answers, isn't it?

 

[Aught3]

I know you don't believe this. Can you tell me the events of every place in the world on August 12, 1400 BC?

Ha! August wasn't invented until much later, this question makes no sense :lol:

 

[Japhia888]

The existence of the universe is something no one can really explain to its fullest yet, but we're seeking the answer.

Yes, but you keep ignoring that two of the 3 possibilites i mentioned, simply do not make sense, which are :

a eternal universe, based on the arguments already presented
and a finite universe, ex nihilo, without a cause at all.

that leads logically to deism, and furthermore to theism, when the link to the bible is done, as i have shown as well.

The fine tuning constants you're talking about are garbage.

Well, you can ignore them. But they exist, its scientific, and its something, that even atheists like Dawkins, Stenger, Davies, and many more aknowledge. Why don't you ? If you don't believe in science, you can start to believe in the Pink Unicorn. It will come out the same.

You do realize that 99% of all species of life that ever arose are now dead right?

that does not take the fine-tune argument away.

It's life's own ability to evolve that had it adapt toward the harsh conditions in the world. The mere wastefulness over the years of specie, upon specie, upon specie to get to us is just silly if done by some sort of intelligent God.

Well, i certainly don't believe in common ancestry...so your argument is pointless to me.

If the universe were fined tuned for life, then it would have occurred elsewhere as well, would it not?

Not, if it wasnt the creators goal .

No, the only fine-tuning you seem to see is in one small little corner of the universe, which is soon to be wiped out by either the Andromeda-Milky Way collision or the destruction of the sun (which looks like it'll happen first).

humanity exists already for thousands of years. So it seems the goal of the creator is pretty well reached so far. Jupiter is btw. well placed, to attract all asteroids , so they wont hit the earth, and kill all life.

Life is but a transient occurrence in the universe, soon to be wiped out. Fined tuned my asshole.

yep. Without finetuning even of the first instant of the Universe, we would not be here. You might explain, why chance is a compelling force, to finetune the expansion rate of the universe to the 120th order.....

DNA --> Evolution.

you are kidding me.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/information-evidence-for-a-creator-t287.htm

First Law of Information (LI1)

Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.)
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

Second Law of Information (LI2)

Information can only originate from an intelligent sender
All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Just as former atheist Dr. Antony Flew questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?

It's like walking along the beach and you see in the sand, "Mike loves Michelle." You know the waves rolling up on the beach didn't form that--a person wrote that. It is a precise message. It is clear communication. In the same way, the DNA structure is a complex, three-billion-lettered script, informing and directing the cell's process.

Consciousness--> Evolution.
Thinking, speech and morality ---> Cultural Evolution.

yep. you seem to know it. but the most aknowledged scientists in the field struggle, and have absolutely no clue how it happened....

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/is-the-ability-of-humans-of-speach-explainable-trough-evolution-t68.htm

Evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson has admitted that there is little possibility of tracing an evolutionary connection between animals and men as far as language is concerned.

Dr. Chomsky states:

"There is no reason to suppose that the 'gaps' are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development of 'higher' from 'lower' stages, in this case, than there is for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking."
In other words there is no comparison at all!

All of these things developed over time, through our own damned struggles. They're chemistry and physics at work.
They weren't magically gifted to us from a God. Too many of our predecessors DIED to pass on the successful genes that will go on to become us.

keep believing your gospel. Thats pure blind faith. Nothing else. But without any scientific base at all.

And you made a little shot about being happy about meaning. You're so silly, you don't even realize that meaning is a human construct and concept. Since when did meaning have anything to do with cosmic validation? As long as my life and my accomplishments, goals and dreams have significant sentimental value to me to be able to call it "meaningful" that's all that ever really matters.

In one hundred years, they will not matter anything at all , anymore. It will , based on your world view, not make any difference, if you lived as a jerk, or as a valuable person to society.

You just don't understand how the world works is all. You need a little anchor for everything and you want everything to be grounded objectively. It's not. We deal with things the way we do, because that's how we are constructed, and it's only practical. In the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't matter anyway, but who gives a fuck about the grand scheme?

Well, i think , we all should, to be truly happy.

We can barely make it past the moon, why would we need anything external to interact with our terrestrial affairs?

Maibe, because that might be our ultimate goal : to have a close relationship with our creator ?

Nothing leads to God, nothing leads to God, nothing leads to God. God does not logically follow from anything.

We have the same evidence. The difference is just the interpretation of the state of affairs.

If we ever reach the point where God really is the best explanation for everything then it would be settled. BUT GOD IS NOT.

It might not be to you. But its certainly to me, and to many other people.

God has been a cop-out answer, and a shrug of dismissal of every important question throughout the history of mankind. It doesn't explain anything, and over time, we found better answers by actual inquiry.

Really ? thats not what the participants do demonstrate here. Have you observed, how many times the escape is " we don't know ( yet ) ? " Where are the better answers ? thats just baseless assertion. bollock. wishful thinking.... nothing else.

If we kept stopping at God for an answer, we wouldn't know anything about anything.

Belief in God has not been a hurdle, but a facilitator for scientific research.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/history-science-and-religion-f16/christian-contribution-to-science-t342.htm#1280

In popular opinion, there has long been a widespread impression that science and the scientific method has always been at odds with the Biblical Worldview --always needing to fight against "religious ignorance." Though there have been many instances of science in conflict with religion around the world, when it comes to the Judeo-Christian Theistic worldview, that general impression is actually far from the truth. In reality, modern Western science was founded upon Judeo-Christian presuppositional foundations from the Bible. And whatsmore, the scientific method today --with an emphasis on logical experimenation and mathematical formulation-- still operates on those assumptions.
In their book, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Crossway,'94), Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton explain how, in all the history of mankind, the modern scientific method and philosophy originated in only one culture (& religious worldview), and that is: --in Christianized Western Europe.

Great Scientists working from a biblical worldview
(...who established the modern scientific method)
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - Hydraulics, Anatomy
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) - Celestial Mechanics, Astronomy
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) - Hydrostatics, Fluid Pressure
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) - Chemistry, Elements, Gas Volume & Pressure, Scientific Method
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) - Calculus, Laws of Gravity & Motion
John Woodward (1665-1728) - Paleontology
Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) - Systematic Biology Classification
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) - Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate Paleontology
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) - Electromagnetics, Field Theory
Charles Babbage (1792-1871) - Computer Science
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) - Ichthyology, Glacial Geology
James Joule (1818-1889) - Reversible Thermodynamics
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) - Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) - Bacteriology, Germs cause Disease, Law of Biogenesis
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) - Thermodynamics, Energetics
William Ramsay (1852-1916) - Isotopic Chemistry

DO YOU NOT SEE HOW THIS STUPID RELIGIOUS THINKING IS DANGEROUS TO KNOWLEDGE? Do you understand what sort of backward, undeveloped society we'd be living in if we still adhered to such thinking?

such thinking and its consequences only happen in your preconceived mind, not in reality.

No, God has never been the best answer to anything, and it will never be.

Please. Talk just for yourself. Thats nothing more than your personal opinion. So, don't generalize.

 

[Andiferous]

I know you don't believe this. Can you tell me the events of every place in the world on August 12, 1400 BC?

Ha! August wasn't invented until much later, this question makes no sense :lol:

Shush you! You cheated.

 

[Independent Vision]

Why is it so important for so many Theists to think linear? Everything has to have a beginning and an end, therefore everything must be created, therefore God must exist. And if it doesn't have a beginning or an end that is even more proof of God?

Japhia888 - A non-linear Universe does not prove God. The Universe not having a beginning or an end does not prove God. Just because you don't understand the way things work doesn't make "God did it" a superior explanation. I understand that you favor this explanation because it gives you more warm fuzzies than admitting that you don't know, but that doesn't make it the best explanation.

 

[Japhia888]

1. The unverse doesn't need a mechanism to come into being as there is no evidence it has ever come into being at all.

So you believe the universe has existed without beginning, eternally ? so how about the energy and second law of thermodynamics ? and the impossibility to have infinity in reality ?
But, lets keep your answer as valid : what mechanism do you suggest for the occurrence of the first life ?

2. There's no finetuning.

Thats simply not true.

3. Several hypotheses on abiogenesis, evolution, evolution, evolution.

proposing what mechanisms exactly for abiogenesis?

There, that was quite simple.

yes, simply wrong........

Please go read a wikipedia article.

nope. we have a debate here. So you are asked to provide answers, and propose your world view.

I also like to point out that "ii's all chance" is something dreamt up by apologists, so I suggest you take those silly one-liners and put them in the bullshit-bin where they belong.

but you have failed so far to provide other mechanisms than chance.

As Story said, you just need to stop fighting it and dare to admit that there is a possibility you might be wrong.

Sure, thats possible. But you failed so far, to show me why i should be wrong. provide better , more compelling and convincing explanations, and i'll might change position.

 

[Japhia888]

Japhia888 - A non-linear Universe does not prove God. The Universe not having a beginning or an end does not prove God.

well, a eternal universe is supposed to prove no God is needed....

Just because you don't understand the way things work doesn't make "God did it" a superior explanation.

see my first post. I dont postulate a god of the gaps, but scientific knowledge can lead logically to God as the best explanation for our existence. Just see abiogenesis , for example :

http://creationwiki.org/Argument_from_incredulity

For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be sceptical of it, because it has never been observed. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. Talk Origins implies that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what they are willing to believe, evolutionists, and Talk Origins in particular, can indeed be classed as credulous.
It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be sceptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be sceptical of it, especially since the account in Genesis better explains very many features of the natural world.

I understand that you favor this explanation because it gives you more warm fuzzies than admitting that you don't know, but that doesn't make it the best explanation.

I don't know is so far no explanation at all, isnt it ?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Out of curiosity, have you ever read When it was Dark?

Him or me? I have not... Worth my time?

Sort of:

In any case, such a demand renders Christianity unfalsifiable. Such remains would have disintegrated completely by this point, as no special care was taken towards preservation. Even if they were found there is no way to conclusively prove their origin.

Unfalsifiability is a sign of extreme weakness in an idea.

Even if they *had* been preserved it would be IMPOSSIBLE to identify them as actually jesus. It's not like his DNA was sequenced and printed in the bible.

Indeed. Though that would have been interesting, and an actual sign of the existence of god as opposed to all these sophomoric inferences.

"And the Lord God shall be known as: GCC ATT CGG ATT TGT AAA GAT CAT GAT CTC ATA CAT AGT ACC TAG CCA TTG TCA TAC ATA GTA CCT AGC CAT TCG GAT TTG TAA. AGA TCA TGA TCT CAT ACA TAG TAC CTA GCC ATT ..."

 

[borrofburi]

a eternal universe, based on the arguments already presented
and a finite universe, ex nihilo, without a cause at all.

You have a false trichotomy. The true dichotomy is that either something has always existed or that something came from nothing. You prefer that "something has always existed" which you say is a sentient magic being; the problem is: this does not solve the problem. Something has still always existed, and that still makes just as much sense as something coming from nothing; that you label the thing you suppose to have always existed (and ascribe attributes to it) with a fancy word does NOT remove the problems of having always existed.

DNA --> Evolution.

you are kidding me.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/information-evidence-for-a-creator-t287.htm

First Law of Information (LI1)

Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.)
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

Second Law of Information (LI2)

Information can only originate from an intelligent sender
All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.

Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this.
"There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."

Bullshit. You have completely misconstrued both thermodynamics and information theory. Information CAN arise from statistical processes; in fact, if I roll a die and keep a running tally of the dice rolls, the result is a long string of information. Indeed a crystal contains a very large amount of information; neither of these are intelligent processes yet both contain information. Moreover language was not intelligently designed, and indeed was refined through a process that very well mirrors evolution.

 

[borrofburi]

"And the Lord God shall be known as: GCC ATT CGG ATT TGT AAA GAT CAT GAT CTC ATA CAT AGT ACC TAG CCA TTG TCA TAC ATA GTA CCT AGC CAT TCG GAT TTG TAA. AGA TCA TGA TCT CAT ACA TAG TAC CTA GCC ATT ..."

Makes one wonder why god didn't bother to do such a thing... The only out is either god purposefully made it impossible to use evidence and reason to arrive at him (the "god values faith" reasoning), or to admit that that god probably doesn't exist. Oh sure, I suppose you can say "god chose to make it so that only by observing the world and having great incredulity at the power of natural processes can you infer that god probably exists", but at that point you're attempting to justify that god CHOSE not to reveal himself as evidently existing.

So, Japhia, do you admit that your position is unfalsifiable?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

"And the Lord God shall be known as: GCC ATT CGG ATT TGT AAA GAT CAT GAT CTC ATA CAT AGT ACC TAG CCA TTG TCA TAC ATA GTA CCT AGC CAT TCG GAT TTG TAA. AGA TCA TGA TCT CAT ACA TAG TAC CTA GCC ATT ..."

Makes one wonder why god didn't bother to do such a thing... The only out is either god purposefully made it impossible to use evidence and reason to arrive at him (the "god values faith" reasoning), or to admit that that god probably doesn't exist. Oh sure, I suppose you can say "god chose to make it so that only by observing the world and having great incredulity at the power of natural processes can you infer that god probably exists", but at that point you're attempting to justify that god CHOSE not to reveal himself as evidently existing.

So, Japhia, do you admit that your position is unfalsifiable?

Indeed. It seems to me obvious that either god does not want us to have any reason to reason that he exists (in which case one wonders why Japhia bothers, as he is clearly working in opposition to gods will), or that god does not exist. To be fair, I suppose god might exist and want us to know that he exists, but be unable to communicate effectively (not omnipotent.)

If the former, then the modified Douglass Adams argument applies:

"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But", says Man, "the [fine tuning of the universe] is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Now obviously I'm not arguing that this god would necessarily be dependent upon faith to sustain its existence, but at the very least it demonstrates that if what Japhia is doing can be done honestly (which is dubious), then he is inept.

 

[Independent Vision]

see my first post. I dont postulate a god of the gaps, but scientific knowledge can lead logically to God as the best explanation for our existence. Just see abiogenesis , for example :

No. This is where you just don't UNDERSTAND. God is not the best explanation!

An invisible, omnipotent, never-created but always alive being which is immaterial created a material universe because he was... what? bored?
It's still material created out of nothing!
And if the material was there all along there was no need for God. Hence... God is not an explanation at all, not even a bad one.
Either he created us out of nothing which is highly illogical.
Or the material was always there and God did not create anything. There was no need to because it was already there.

So either you're saying "God did it" without ANY evidence, logic, common sense or any of the things you claim prove God.
Or your saying that even if God exists he didn't do anything, really, because it was all already there.

This is where you just don't get it. You don't understand, which doesn't make "God did it" a better explanation. Just one that gives you warm fuzzies.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life.

First off, we both accept abiogenesis because without it we would have an infinite regress. What you have to understand is that abiogenesis is only the study of how life started on earth. Within this study, there are many hypotheses of how life started (i.e. Clay theory, RNA world hypothesis, etc"¦). This means that the idea of a god(s) creating life on earth would also fall into the study of abiogenesis. However, the idea of a god(s) creating life on earth will forever go untested until a mechanism is proposed for how this god(s) started life. After this mechanism is proposed, it can be tested.
Now do you have a mechanism or not? If it is not provided than your idea about a god(s) creating life on earth is unscientific.

Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be sceptical (sic) of it, especially since the account in Genesis better explains very many features of the natural world.

What features of the natural world are better explained with the Genesis account? This would be news to me.

 

[Story]

Japhia, tell me the difference between saying "God did it" and "A magical entity done it with it's powerful magic".

no difference. the most marvellous magic however would be, if absolutely nothing were the cause of our universe. Now. THAT would be REAL magic. :!:

Good, I'm glad you agree that magic and goddidit are technically synonymous.

Okay, now consider these four things.

1. What evidence could you find that would demonstrate that something happened because of magic instead of some naturalistic explanation?

2. If you don't know how something happened, "magic" will always fit the gap.

3. Assuming that it was magic that caused a certain thing, attempting any further inquiry into that thing is halted. We have no idea of what the nature of magic is.

4. All the following things were previously thought to be purely magical/supernatural, all further inquiry was abandoned because of these thoughts.

• Lightning
• Diseases
• Creation of Species
• Rain
• The Harvest
• Epilepsy
• Hereditary Genetics
• Death
• and the list goes on...

If scientists assume god did these things, then why would we ever search for naturalistic explanations? And if you believe that god has anything to do with the world (like the weather and seasons). Then you should know that these have naturalistic explanations too, why can't god and natural explanation work together? Why do they have to contradict?

that is a argument of authority, and argumentum ad populum. I could make the exact same argument, based on the numerous theist scientists, and the shere uncountable number of people around the globe, and of all ages, which do and did believe in God. That does not lead anywhere.

No... people, research, evidence and arguments leading someone to doubt their position has nothing to do with the argument from authority or popularity. The first thing you need to learn about the logical fallacies is that they only apply when someone argues that something is true because of a thing, it has nothing to do with personal doubts. So this scenario wouldn't qualify at all. Nevertheless, the very fact that I mentioned evidence, research and arguments as a part of the scenario I was describing completely disqualifies it from any claim of fallacy.

Japhia, you are grabbing at straws here. If you would actually try to think about anything that is being said, maybe you could help your arguments, but you're not. You're just trying to parrot something you've read somewhere and it shows.