Why Do People Care?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, DD, you’re comparing a “belief” in something reasonably defensible with a “belief” in something ridiculous.

For example, I’ve never seen an electron, nor could I ‘prove’ that electrons exist. But since the atom model is the best explanation we seem to have for explaining how things work at that level, I “believe” in electrons.

However, I dont believe in leprechauns. I’ve also never seen leprechauns, I also could not ‘prove’ that they exist.

But it would be quite stupid for someone to say “How is it you can believe in electrons but not leprechauns?”[/quote]

Funny I don’t believe in electrons. I conditionally accept them as a matter of practicality.

But I and many people think the best explanation for existence itself is a god. I will also change my view if a better alternative theory becomes available.[/quote]

I have to admit I doubt you would. Believers will always first resist any alternative theory, often in ridiculous ways. Look at evolution. Check out the video on bananas disproving evolution. Or the argument about the “missing link”, or “Evolution is false because zebras don’t evolve into rabbits.”

And, even after evolution is widely accepted, believers still only believe in it IF they can force it into the context of what they already believe. You get “intelligent design” which means “God did it, but evolution is how he did it”.

102

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I’m aware of that. Trust me, I’ve walked down that road.[/quote]

I’m not saying this to be rude or argumentative, but some of the things you say dont make sense.

You’re aware that you’re making a case against inherent values. You’ve “walked down the road” of not believing in inherent values.

But, somehow, you made a U turn on that road and now you believe in them, and, as a result, believe in the necessity of a God.

Yet you’re back to making arguments against what you currently believe?[/quote]

No, I’m just illuminating the way I see things. I’m full of cognitive dissonance.

Part of making the leap from inherent value to god is exposing the possibility there is no inherent value.

I haven’t yet tried to argue for inherent value, because I can’t. All of my arguments were contingent on it. But to remain consistent in you don’t believe in inherent value, you can’t believe anything beyond the physical universe. No love or good or bad est.

You are entitled to not believe in inherent value, I only ask that you remain logically consistent.

103

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, DD, you’re comparing a “belief” in something reasonably defensible with a “belief” in something ridiculous.

For example, I’ve never seen an electron, nor could I ‘prove’ that electrons exist. But since the atom model is the best explanation we seem to have for explaining how things work at that level, I “believe” in electrons.

However, I dont believe in leprechauns. I’ve also never seen leprechauns, I also could not ‘prove’ that they exist.

But it would be quite stupid for someone to say “How is it you can believe in electrons but not leprechauns?”[/quote]

Funny I don’t believe in electrons. I conditionally accept them as a matter of practicality.

But I and many people think the best explanation for existence itself is a god. I will also change my view if a better alternative theory becomes available.[/quote]

I have to admit I doubt you would. Believers will always first resist any alternative theory, often in ridiculous ways. Look at evolution. Check out the video on bananas disproving evolution. Or the argument about the “missing link”, or “Evolution is false because zebras don’t evolve into rabbits.”

And, even after evolution is widely accepted, believers still only believe in it IF they can force it into the context of what they already believe. You get “intelligent design” which means “God did it, but evolution is how he did it”.

[/quote]

All of this you are accenting may be averages, but it is far from universal. I’m an agnostic believer, I don’t think any of it is provable. And the banana video is dumb.

Evolution is an interesting one. I actually hold conflicting beliefs about also. I accept evolution, but because I believe in a god I’m forced to acknowledge that the universe and biology could have begun at any time.

104

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Also, DD, you’re comparing a “belief” in something reasonably defensible with a “belief” in something ridiculous.

For example, I’ve never seen an electron, nor could I ‘prove’ that electrons exist. But since the atom model is the best explanation we seem to have for explaining how things work at that level, I “believe” in electrons.

However, believe in leprechauns. I’ve also never seen leprechauns, I also could not ‘prove’ that they e
One area I disagree with most churches is that if the is a God then he created Science , granted Man does not understand the system the way he thinks but science is the operating system of our world , life and exsistance

But it would be quite stupid for someone to say “How is it you can believe in electrons but not leprechauns?”[/quote]

Funny I don’t believe in electrons. I conditionally accept them as a matter of practicality.

But I and many people think the best explanation for existence itself is a god. I will also change my view if a better alternative theory becomes available.[/quote]

I have to admit I doubt you would. Believers will always first resist any alternative theory, often in ridiculous ways. Look at evolution. Check out the video on bananas disproving evolution. Or the argument about the “missing link”, or “Evolution is false because zebras don’t evolve into rabbits.”

And, even after evolution is widely accepted, believers still only believe in it IF they can force it into the context of what they already believe. You get “intelligent design” which means “God did it, but evolution is how he did it”.

[/quote]

All of this you are accenting may be averages, but it is far from universal. I’m an agnostic believer, I don’t think any of it is provable. And the banana video is dumb.

Evolution is an interesting one. I actually hold conflicting beliefs about also. I accept evolution, but because I believe in a god I’m forced to acknowledge that the universe and biology could have begun at any time.[/quote]

One area I disagree with most Churches is that , If there is a God then Science was created by God as an operating system for our life ,world and existence . I think the Churches mistake man’s misunderstanding of that system as proof the system does not exist.

105

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

I don’t think anyone denies the physical laws of the universe. And I think the bigger mistake made by pro science people is to mistake an understanding of the equations with an understanding of the nature of the universe.

106

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

I don’t think anyone denies the physical laws of the universe. And I think the bigger mistake made by pro science people is to mistake an understanding of the equations with an understanding of the nature of the universe.[/quote]

I think this conversation has evolved (get it?) into an intelligent discussion of the nature of existence and God etc. I too am an agnostic believer in some sort of first cause which I call God.

I find it harder to believe in/wrap my head around an infinite regress in causality than to accept that matter and energy had a definite origin and that said origin must by definition be free of the physical laws under which all subsequent events have operated. If a miracle is an otherwise inexplicable violation of physical law, and a fundamental law of physics is that matter cannot be either created or destroyed, then by its very existence matter is itself a miracle.

However, these are big questions. They have been debated to no end by intellectual titans and have still not been resolved. The truth of the matter is that none of us know. We can talk about it and think about it endlessly–and we should–but for someone to stand up and have the arrogance to tell me that they not only know for a fact that God exists but are also intimately familiar with His wishes, hopes, and plans for humanity is offensive. If the greatest philosophers in human history struggled to prove and/or disprove God’s existence, what gives a guy from Alabama with nothing more than a high school education the right to claim that God is this and that and he hates homosexuals and he doesn’t want people to wear condoms and if we don’t sit in His fancy building every Sunday we’re going to burn in hell?

Scratch that, he certainly has the right to claim and think whatever he wants. But when the unfounded superstitions of my neighbor affect the law of my land, I have a problem. That is why I care about religion in America.

107

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

I don’t think anyone denies the physical laws of the universe. And I think the bigger mistake made by pro science people is to mistake an understanding of the equations with an understanding of the nature of the universe.[/quote]

I think this conversation has evolved (get it?) into an intelligent discussion of the nature of existence and God etc. I too am an agnostic believer in some sort of first cause which I call God.

I find it harder to believe in/wrap my head around an infinite regress in causality than to accept that matter and energy had a definite origin and that said origin must by definition be free of the physical laws under which all subsequent events have operated. If a miracle is an otherwise inexplicable violation of physical law, and a fundamental law of physics is that matter cannot be either created or destroyed, then by its very existence matter is itself a miracle.

However, these are big questions. They have been debated to no end by intellectual titans and have still not been resolved. The truth of the matter is that none of us know. We can talk about it and think about it endlessly–and we should–but for someone to stand up and have the arrogance to tell me that they not only know for a fact that God exists but are also intimately familiar with His wishes, hopes, and plans for humanity is offensive. If the greatest philosophers in human history struggled to prove and/or disprove God’s existence, what gives a guy from Alabama with nothing more than a high school education the right to claim that God is this and that and he hates homosexuals and he doesn’t want people to wear condoms and if we don’t sit in His fancy building every Sunday we’re going to burn in hell?

Scratch that, he certainly has the right to claim and think whatever he wants. But when the unfounded superstitions of my neighbor affect the law of my land, I have a problem. That is why I care about religion in America.[/quote]

This sounds a lot like me. Other than I’m not sure what is wrong with Alabama. Both my brothers will have business degrees from a top 10 ranked business school soon (UAH)

108

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

I don’t think anyone denies the physical laws of the universe. And I think the bigger mistake made by pro science people is to mistake an understanding of the equations with an understanding of the nature of the universe.[/quote]

I think this conversation has evolved (get it?) into an intelligent discussion of the nature of existence and God etc. I too am an agnostic believer in some sort of first cause which I call God.

I find it harder to believe in/wrap my head around an infinite regress in causality than to accept that matter and energy had a definite origin and that said origin must by definition be free of the physical laws under which all subsequent events have operated. If a miracle is an otherwise inexplicable violation of physical law, and a fundamental law of physics is that matter cannot be either created or destroyed, then by its very existence matter is itself a miracle.

However, these are big questions. They have been debated to no end by intellectual titans and have still not been resolved. The truth of the matter is that none of us know. We can talk about it and think about it endlessly–and we should–but for someone to stand up and have the arrogance to tell me that they not only know for a fact that God exists but are also intimately familiar with His wishes, hopes, and plans for humanity is offensive. If the greatest philosophers in human history struggled to prove and/or disprove God’s existence, what gives a guy from Alabama with nothing more than a high school education the right to claim that God is this and that and he hates homosexuals and he doesn’t want people to wear condoms and if we don’t sit in His fancy building every Sunday we’re going to burn in hell?

Scratch that, he certainly has the right to claim and think whatever he wants. But when the unfounded superstitions of my neighbor affect the law of my land, I have a problem. That is why I care about religion in America.[/quote]

This sounds a lot like me. Other than I’m not sure what is wrong with Alabama. Both my brothers will have business degrees from a top 10 ranked business school soon (UAH)[/quote]

lol nothing wrong with Alabama at all. I love the south. It could’ve been any state or any country. I just chose a place where I know there is a lot of deep-rooted Christianity.

109

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

I don’t think anyone denies the physical laws of the universe. And I think the bigger mistake made by pro science people is to mistake an understanding of the equations with an understanding of the nature of the universe.[/quote]

I think this conversation has evolved (get it?) into an intelligent discussion of the nature of existence and God etc. I too am an agnostic believer in some sort of first cause which I call God.

I find it harder to believe in/wrap my head around an infinite regress in causality than to accept that matter and energy had a definite origin and that said origin must by definition be free of the physical laws under which all subsequent events have operated. If a miracle is an otherwise inexplicable violation of physical law, and a fundamental law of physics is that matter cannot be either created or destroyed, then by its very existence matter is itself a miracle.

However, these are big questions. They have been debated to no end by intellectual titans and have still not been resolved. The truth of the matter is that none of us know. We can talk about it and think about it endlessly–and we should–but for someone to stand up and have the arrogance to tell me that they not only know for a fact that God exists but are also intimately familiar with His wishes, hopes, and plans for humanity is offensive. If the greatest philosophers in human history struggled to prove and/or disprove God’s existence, what gives a guy from Alabama with nothing more than a high school education the right to claim that God is this and that and he hates homosexuals and he doesn’t want people to wear condoms and if we don’t sit in His fancy building every Sunday we’re going to burn in hell?

Scratch that, he certainly has the right to claim and think whatever he wants. But when the unfounded superstitions of my neighbor affect the law of my land, I have a problem. That is why I care about religion in America.[/quote]

Given the great expanse of the cosmos, what gives us the right to think HE has a plan for US at all? If you construct this great farm, do you have a plan for the ants?

110

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Given the great expanse of the cosmos, what gives us the right to think HE has a plan for US at all? If you construct this great farm, do you have a plan for the ants?[/quote]

You’ve fallen into another of your logical fallacies. That is, since HE has created so much HE does not care about us. Furthermore, your example is inaccurate as we did not create the ants.

111

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

I don’t think anyone denies the physical laws of the universe. And I think the bigger mistake made by pro science people is to mistake an understanding of the equations with an understanding of the nature of the universe.[/quote]

I think this conversation has evolved (get it?) into an intelligent discussion of the nature of existence and God etc. I too am an agnostic believer in some sort of first cause which I call God.

I find it harder to believe in/wrap my head around an infinite regress in causality than to accept that matter and energy had a definite origin and that said origin must by definition be free of the physical laws under which all subsequent events have operated. If a miracle is an otherwise inexplicable violation of physical law, and a fundamental law of physics is that matter cannot be either created or destroyed, then by its very existence matter is itself a miracle.

However, these are big questions. They have been debated to no end by intellectual titans and have still not been resolved. The truth of the matter is that none of us know. We can talk about it and think about it endlessly–and we should–but for someone to stand up and have the arrogance to tell me that they not only know for a fact that God exists but are also intimately familiar with His wishes, hopes, and plans for humanity is offensive. If the greatest philosophers in human history struggled to prove and/or disprove God’s existence, what gives a guy from Alabama with nothing more than a high school education the right to claim that God is this and that and he hates homosexuals and he doesn’t want people to wear condoms and if we don’t sit in His fancy building every Sunday we’re going to burn in hell?

Scratch that, he certainly has the right to claim and think whatever he wants. But when the unfounded superstitions of my neighbor affect the law of my land, I have a problem. That is why I care about religion in America.[/quote]

Given the great expanse of the cosmos, what gives us the right to think HE has a plan for US at all? If you construct this great farm, do you have a plan for the ants?[/quote]

I agree completely. I suspect that something outside of our physical world must have set in motion (though I understand that this may not be the case). Other than that, I believe that very little about the nature of God can be known at all. I don’t understand how people can be stupid enough to claim to know ‘His’ plan, or to even know that He HAS a plan.

Sometimes I hope they’re right and that there IS a supreme being watching over us, just so that He (She?) can find each one of these arrogant pricks after they’ve died and tell them how fucking insulting it is to watch a worthless braindead piece of shit rolling around in the dust on Earth pretending to know the inner psychology of a divine being.

Human arrogance has few limitations.

112

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Given the great expanse of the cosmos, what gives us the right to think HE has a plan for US at all? If you construct this great farm, do you have a plan for the ants?[/quote]

You’ve fallen into another of your logical fallacies. That is, since HE has created so much HE does not care about us. Furthermore, your example is inaccurate as we did not create the ants.
[/quote]

It is NOT a logical fallacy; it’s only antithetical to your religious beliefs. Put a better way, who said HE created US? Maybe he created the matter and let is grow according to ITS will. And, “another one of my logical fallaices”? What were the others?

113

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

I don’t think anyone denies the physical laws of the universe. And I think the bigger mistake made by pro science people is to mistake an understanding of the equations with an understanding of the nature of the universe.[/quote]

I think this conversation has evolved (get it?) into an intelligent discussion of the nature of existence and God etc. I too am an agnostic believer in some sort of first cause which I call God.

I find it harder to believe in/wrap my head around an infinite regress in causality than to accept that matter and energy had a definite origin and that said origin must by definition be free of the physical laws under which all subsequent events have operated. If a miracle is an otherwise inexplicable violation of physical law, and a fundamental law of physics is that matter cannot be either created or destroyed, then by its very existence matter is itself a miracle.

However, these are big questions. They have been debated to no end by intellectual titans and have still not been resolved. The truth of the matter is that none of us know. We can talk about it and think about it endlessly–and we should–but for someone to stand up and have the arrogance to tell me that they not only know for a fact that God exists but are also intimately familiar with His wishes, hopes, and plans for humanity is offensive. If the greatest philosophers in human history struggled to prove and/or disprove God’s existence, what gives a guy from Alabama with nothing more than a high school education the right to claim that God is this and that and he hates homosexuals and he doesn’t want people to wear condoms and if we don’t sit in His fancy building every Sunday we’re going to burn in hell?

Scratch that, he certainly has the right to claim and think whatever he wants. But when the unfounded superstitions of my neighbor affect the law of my land, I have a problem. That is why I care about religion in America.[/quote]

Given the great expanse of the cosmos, what gives us the right to think HE has a plan for US at all? If you construct this great farm, do you have a plan for the ants?[/quote]

I agree completely. I suspect that something outside of our physical world must have set in motion (though I understand that this may not be the case). Other than that, I believe that very little about the nature of God can be known at all. I don’t understand how people can be stupid enough to claim to know ‘His’ plan, or to even know that He HAS a plan.

Sometimes I hope they’re right and that there IS a supreme being watching over us, just so that He (She?) can find each one of these arrogant pricks after they’ve died and tell them how fucking insulting it is to watch a worthless braindead piece of shit rolling around in the dust on Earth pretending to know the inner psychology of a divine being.

Human arrogance has few limitations.[/quote]

Anthropocentrism is the seed of religion.

114

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Anthropocentrism is the seed of religion. [/quote]

I dunno, the Egyptians whorshipped a giant dungbeetle.

115

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Given the great expanse of the cosmos, what gives us the right to think HE has a plan for US at all? If you construct this great farm, do you have a plan for the ants?[/quote]

You’ve fallen into another of your logical fallacies. That is, since HE has created so much HE does not care about us. Furthermore, your example is inaccurate as we did not create the ants.
[/quote]

It is NOT a logical fallacy; it’s only antithetical to your religious beliefs.[/quote]

You are incorrect. Your statement as worded above is indeed a logical fallacy. You are not questioning the existence of God in that statement which renders your attack on my religious beliefs unimportant. In fact, you are referring to God as “HE”. That said, you are claiming that since HE has such a great territory to cover why would HE pay attention to us. And that is a logical fallacy or more accurately you’ve committed an error of reasoning. You’ve made an assumption that God (your God the one you refer to as HE) does not care about us because he has created a vast universe. And once again you’ve erred in your comparison of us to an ant farm. The major difference being that we (as human beings)did not create the ants.

You’ve stated that because there are so many religions that all are wrong. And as I hope you can see that is not logical. Simply because there are many religions that does not mean that not one of them is correct. It’s like saying there are so many dieticians with varying opinions that they must all wrong. Certainly one of them could indeed be correct. I’m sure you can see your sweeping conclusion is in error.

116

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Given the great expanse of the cosmos, what gives us the right to think HE has a plan for US at all? If you construct this great farm, do you have a plan for the ants?[/quote]

You’ve fallen into another of your logical fallacies. That is, since HE has created so much HE does not care about us. Furthermore, your example is inaccurate as we did not create the ants.
[/quote]

It is NOT a logical fallacy; it’s only antithetical to your religious beliefs.[/quote]

You are incorrect. Your statement as worded above is indeed a logical fallacy. You are not questioning the existence of God in that statement which renders your attack on my religious beliefs unimportant. In fact, you are referring to God as “HE”. That said, you are claiming that since HE has such a great territory to cover why would HE pay attention to us. And that is a logical fallacy or more accurately you’ve committed an error of reasoning. You’ve made an assumption that God (your God the one you refer to as HE) does not care about us because he has created a vast universe. And once again you’ve erred in your comparison of us to an ant farm. The major difference being that we (as human beings)did not create the ants.

You’ve stated that because there are so many religions that all are wrong. And as I hope you can see that is not logical. Simply because there are many religions that does not mean that not one of them is correct. It’s like saying there are so many dieticians with varying opinions that they must all wrong. Certainly one of them could indeed be correct. I’m sure you can see your sweeping conclusion is in error.[/quote]

This is not what I said and I retorted this in another thread. I’m not doing it in two threads. Carry on.

117

But since you’re in love with applying cold hard logic to every thought expressed, even if that thought expressed might have been awkward, let me know when you’re ready for me to apply cold hard logic to your religion.

118

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Given the great expanse of the cosmos, what gives us the right to think HE has a plan for US at all? If you construct this great farm, do you have a plan for the ants?[/quote]

You’ve fallen into another of your logical fallacies. That is, since HE has created so much HE does not care about us. Furthermore, your example is inaccurate as we did not create the ants.
[/quote]

It is NOT a logical fallacy; it’s only antithetical to your religious beliefs.[/quote]

You are incorrect. Your statement as worded above is indeed a logical fallacy. You are not questioning the existence of God in that statement which renders your attack on my religious beliefs unimportant. In fact, you are referring to God as “HE”. That said, you are claiming that since HE has such a great territory to cover why would HE pay attention to us. And that is a logical fallacy or more accurately you’ve committed an error of reasoning. You’ve made an assumption that God (your God the one you refer to as HE) does not care about us because he has created a vast universe. And once again you’ve erred in your comparison of us to an ant farm. The major difference being that we (as human beings)did not create the ants.

You’ve stated that because there are so many religions that all are wrong. And as I hope you can see that is not logical. Simply because there are many religions that does not mean that not one of them is correct. It’s like saying there are so many dieticians with varying opinions that they must all wrong. Certainly one of them could indeed be correct. I’m sure you can see your sweeping conclusion is in error.[/quote]

This is not what I said and I retorted this in another thread. I’m not doing it in two threads. Carry on.[/quote]

Not so fast, this is what you said: [quote]Given the great expanse of the cosmos, what gives us the right to think HE has a plan for US at all? If you construct this great farm, do you have a plan for the ants?[/quote]

There is no misinterpretation involved. You either stand by this statement or you don’t which is it?

119

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
But since you’re in love with applying cold hard logic to every thought expressed, even if that thought expressed might have been awkward, let me know when you’re ready for me to apply cold hard logic to your religion.[/quote]

With all due respect if I were you I would begin immediately questioning any thoughts I had about there not being a God if those thoughts were promulgated upon the strength of the logic that you’ve demonstrated on these threads.

120

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
But since you’re in love with applying cold hard logic to every thought expressed, even if that thought expressed might have been awkward, let me know when you’re ready for me to apply cold hard logic to your religion.[/quote]

With all due respect if I were you I would begin immediately questioning any thoughts I had about there not being a God if those thoughts were promulgated upon the strength of the logic that you’ve demonstrated on these threads. [/quote]

I’m not getting into a semantics pissing contest with you. Wake me up when you are ready to apply the logical principles you espouse to your religion. I’ll wait, but I shall not hold my breath.

You know exactly what I was saying. Who said God created man at all? What if he just created the Universe? What if you are no different than a star that formed? Did God directly form the star too? Because in the final analysis, you’re no more than star dust. So while you want to pick apart the “logic” of my ant farm analogy, which might have been a poor analogy, you understood the point, but chose to nit pick. Like I said above, let me know when you are ready to bring to bear the principles of cold hard logic to your religion. I’ll be waiting. We will give it its own thread and it will be about one page before you throw up the “faith” white flag.