Does God exist?

[sinkoman]

I don't require the approval of others to know that theism and gnosis are entirely separate fields, or that the antonym of belief is disbelief. A flawed idea does not magically become valid if the masses huddle under it, at least no more than if 90% of this forum cried out that the sky is purple. And for the most part, my lack of support seems stemmed not from flawed arguments, but because I'm likely too vile to stand next to. I can live with that.

I kind of meant across the whole internet, not just this forum.

Unless you, standing all on your own in the internet, are still correct.

:thumbs:

I dunno, it's late, and i'm being a twat.

Sowwy

Please don't tell daddy.

 

[Double_Blade]

Later.

Im not always updated on PMs seriously. But be patient, my friend. I will surely PM to you in any minute! If I want to though.

But Im telling you to stop judging people's religions and dictating their religions thinking that you had the glowing light of superioty.

 

[Jintor]

Where am I bashing anybody's religion? How am I trolling?

I don't know about bashing other people's religion, but it is, actually, possible, to present your facts without seeming like a smarmy, self-righteous dickass.

 

[Double_Blade]

I don't require the approval of others to know that theism and gnosis are entirely separate fields, or that the antonym of belief is disbelief. A flawed idea does not magically become valid if the masses huddle under it, at least no more than if 90% of this forum cried out that the sky is purple. And for the most part, my lack of support seems stemmed not from flawed arguments, but because I'm likely too vile to stand next to. I can live with that.

But if this amuses you, thumbs up, dude! Maybe you'll learn a thing or two.

And Erestheux! Good ol' Erestheux... You are guilty of cherry-picking and omitting critical information! For shame.

From Webster-Online:
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

And another thing, I never disputed the definition on dictionary.com!

Hey! Guess which one of your 3 sources doesn't follow this recurring theme? Guess which one defies atymology and common sense? Answers.com! And yet you can't find a single reason as to why atheism.about.com was unreliable. Oh, Erestheux. You really should have paid more attention! Perhaps you could have also learned that a lack of belief in gods has to precede a denial of their existence.

But again, you view my post deletion as some kind of cover-up. Congratulations! Now you're insecure and paranoid! It's funny. As much as you don't like arguing about words, you're certainly eager to reciprocate in this!

Haha, nice one Ludah. But please, try again that stunt.

Using this to cover up your arguments thinking that no one knows what happen? Well, they KNOW!

Maybe you should learn about religions before attacking them.

 

[Ludah]

I kind of meant across the whole internet, not just this forum.

I'd really love to see you back up this statement. You can't, of course, but it's worth the shot any way.

I don't know about bashing other people's religion, but it is, actually, possible, to present your facts without seeming like a smarmy, self-righteous dickass.

I've dished out exactly what was given to me. I have no qualms with rolling around in the mud with the rest of these people. I was nothing but polite in the beginning. Call me nitpicky, if you wish. I'm game with that. Persistent to a fault. But I was throwing shit around long after others. Even later in this debacle, I largely refrained from insults.

But let me guess. Because I don't have a 1000+ post count, I'm a troll.

Haha, nice one Ludah. But please, try again that stunt.

Using this to cover up your arguments thinking that no one knows what happen? Well, they KNOW!

Maybe you should learn about religions before attacking them.

What in the name of Jesus are you talking about?

 

[Element Alpha]

Are you guys still discussing semantics?

Everyone knows there is no way to prove god exists. That's why religion is based on faith. That means everyone is an agnostic.

There, I said it. Now everyone discuss how I am your god and how cool and awesomely avengefull I am and maybe I'll let you guys be my popes.

PS: I can prove I exist

 

[Yuri]

And Erestheux! Good ol' Erestheux... You are guilty of cherry-picking and omitting critical information! For shame.

From Webster-Online:
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Uhh, what? What are yout talking about, and where did you get that definition? If you were to perhaps link me to where you found that definition, maybe you would sound less like you are snatching it from thin air. Also, if you actually look at my post, it includes a link to the definition. For your convienance, I will post it here once again, as well as the definition of atheism.

Definition of Atheist

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Definition of Atheism

atheism
One entry found for atheism.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

So yeah, I have no idea where you got that definition or why you are accusing me of censoring it when the link is right in front of you, and Merriam-Webster Online does not support what you said in the slightest...

And another thing, I never disputed the definition on dictionary.com!

Well, I assumed you did when dictionary.com's definition is exactly the same, word for word, with the answers.com one. Using your best friend, logic, would mean that if you thought the answers.com definition were faulty, since the dictionary.com one is the same, word for word, it was faulty, too!

Hey! Guess which one of your 3 sources doesn't follow this recurring theme? Guess which one defies atymology and common sense? Answers.com! And yet you can't find a single reason as to why atheism.about.com was unreliable. Oh, Erestheux. You really should have paid more attention! Perhaps you could have also learned that a lack of belief in gods has to precede a denial of their existence.

I'm very confused. Out of the 3 sources I provided, two of them are exactly the same word for word. (Answers.com and Dictionary.com). The third one, the Merriam-Webster Online one, is even more strict than the others and proves my point even more...

I also don't understand how you can overlook the fact that what we are debating is indeed something that many scholars are debating. I would rather go by dictionary definitions than your famous, unscatheable about.com, because dictionary definitions are what people think of when the word "atheist" is used, and I don't want to be labelled as something I am not according to every dictionary I've ever come across.

But again, you view my post deletion as some kind of cover-up. Congratulations! Now you're insecure and paranoid! It's funny. As much as you don't like arguing about words, you're certainly eager to reciprocate in this!

Insecure and paranoid because I enjoy rubbin in the fact that you made a post filled with holes and generally being wrong? Yeah.

As much as I don't enjoy arguing words, I "enjoy" (rather, feel obligated to) defend my belief from those who want to dictate it to me, and prove how they are not right with their false sense of authority.




Oh, wait, I just found the website where you found the only definition that supports your claim, its actually just plain old Webster's Online, instead of Webster-Merriam, and comes up a few down on google after the one I used. It also seems less credible, but well, it claims to be a dictionary so I will not question it. However, there is something odd about your choice of definitions and the definitions provided on the website.

You chose atheism and not atheist. Let's look at the two definitions on that very site.

Atheist
Adjective

1. Related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings".
Noun

1. Someone who denies the existence of god.

Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.


Date "atheist" was first used: 1571. (references)

Link

Atheism
Noun

1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Source: WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.


Date "atheism" was first used in popular English literature: sometime before 1601. (references)

Link

Now, that just doesn't seem right, for two reasons.
-You specifically did not choose the definition of atheist (which is the source word that I used in my previous post). You must have looked that up, seen that the definition does not support you, and try "atheism" instead, for something that actually does better suit your point
-When an atheist is someone who, for lack of a better word, "practices" atheism, why is an atheist someone who denies the existance of god, while atheism is both the doctrine or belief that there is no God, AND the lack of belief in the existance of god's (which, I will admit, describes myself! Bravo!) Why doesn't atheist have two definitions, as well?

Even with your one dictionary definition backing your claim (yet the same dictionary defining another word not doing so), you cannot deny that there is currently debate on the definition of this word you so want to classify me as. You also cannot deny that when you say "atheist" or "atheism" to a person, they do not think of what your definition is but instead my definition. Which leads us back to this:

I am not an atheist, I am agnostic.

Thank you.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Are you guys still discussing semantics?

Everyone knows there is no way to prove god exists. That's why religion is based on faith. That means everyone is an agnostic.

Thank you. I was about to say that.

 

[Apos]

Dictionaries are guides to common usage. In the case of atheists, atheists have long been slandered and demonized.

If someone asks me if I believe in God, I say no. That person will then call me an atheist. Then that person will insist that atheist means the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

Unfortunately for them, they are contradicting themselves.

You may be an agnostic, but you are also a non-believer, and if someone asks if you believe in god or not, you'd have to say no.

At that point, even the people who insist that atheist means "belief that no gods exist" will start calling you an atheist.

As I said, I don't really care how someone defines atheist. Definitions are all arbitrary. But what I don't want is people switching usages midstream in order to confuse or attack folks. And that's exactly what people use those definitions of "atheist" to do.

I'm happy to call myself a non-believer, which is much less confusing.

 

[Rizzo]

Id say no. Faith is not knowing. Beliving isn't facts. When ever we face a problem without a solution we say god did it. I think thats silly.

 

[Jintor]

I've dished out exactly what was given to me. I have no qualms with rolling around in the mud with the rest of these people. I was nothing but polite in the beginning. Call me nitpicky, if you wish. I'm game with that. Persistent to a fault. But I was throwing shit around long after others. Even later in this debacle, I largely refrained from insults.

But let me guess. Because I don't have a 1000+ post count, I'm a troll.

No, it's not because you don't have a 1000+ postcount. It's because. You. Are. Dishing out. What was given to you.

If other people wish to insult you, don't sink to their level. That. Is. All. That. I. Am. SAYING.

 

[Element Alpha]

That. Is. All. That. I. Am. SAYING.

Should I imagine a robocop voice saying that?

 

[Raziaar]

Id say no. Faith is not knowing. Beliving isn't facts. When ever we face a problem without a solution we say god did it. I think thats silly.

Not everybody just says 'god did it'. That's silly. Sure, god did it, but he did it in a way that can be explained through the scientific world around us. That's what I believe.

 

[Laivasse]

The universe is equally perplexing with or without a God. Why does anything exist at all? Why not nothing? How can time have no beginning? How can space be infinite? And if time & space are not infinite, their finiteness is equally incomprehensible. How did consciousness arise as a result of the laws of physics? Why are there laws of physics? Believing in God doesn't really help answer any of these questions, because you then are left asking the same questions about God. The fact that we have no answer for these questions suggests to me that there is a level beyond our current comprehension. If humanity is evolving, where will it lead in a 1000 years? In a million years? Is there a limit to our evolution, or will we in the end become God?

This is a very good post. I'm glad I found it and sorry everyone else missed it. Whether you believe in a god or not, when dealing with the nature of the universe you still have to deal with such mind-boggling things as the nature of infinity, the scale of the universe, the limits of human comprehension, the possibility of superhuman consciousness, among others.

I suppose I am agnostic theist.

I tend towards the belief that 'god' - defined through my agnosticism as a superhuman consciousness unknowable to us, which may have created us, and possibly existing beyond the laws which govern us - exists, because I really don't find it all that outlandish considering what we know to be the nature of the universe. My reasoning about this matter, which I don't fully understand yet will try to define here, is thus:
humans are intelligent;
I hope most would agree there is the possibility of higher than human intelligence, somewhere in the universe;
Is there a limit to the potentiality of intelligence? Where does that limit lie? Is it such an insult to the laws of science to propose that there could concievably be (what we would define as) godlike intelligence?* Would that godlike intelligence not also necessarily imply godlike capability? Because any halfway capable life-form with uber-consciousness is not going to sit around on their hands, as that would be fairly stupid, no?
-
*Don't dismiss this possibility out of hand just because 'godlike intelligence' sounds so romantic. Imagine if there were some way to convert every human mind on this planet into raw processing power, multiply it by a few billion, chuck in some wacky AI, give it better eyesight and a jetpack and you're off.
-
Once you're comfortable with the idea of a godlike intelligence, as I am, then the rest just tends to fall into place. It could have done anything. It could exist outside the laws of the universe by which we live, having created those itself. As such, it could easily make itself perpetually unknowable.

It begs the question - why believe that this is the case, with no evidence to the affirmative? Well, why not. The scale and age of the universe is often used by atheists to explain the favourable circumstances which allow us to exist, but why should such probability tinkering also exclude the possibility of superconsciousnesses, somewhere - especially if you factor in the whole multiple universe thing. It's just a cool scenario, that's why. I'd like to see you bastards think up something better, other than 'stuff just happens'; WHERE'S THE PLOT IN THAT? Dayumn, bitch. All I no iz dere's some crazy shit out dere. Fo' real.

 

[99.vikram]

This is a very good post. I'm glad I found it and sorry everyone else missed it. Whether you believe in a god or not, when dealing with the nature of the universe you still have to deal with such mind-boggling things as the nature of infinity, the scale of the universe, the limits of human comprehension, the possibility of superhuman consciousness, among others.

As intelligent as your post was, I beg to differ. Today the scale of the universe is mind boggling, just as yesterday the concept of relativity was "mind boggling". I believe that as we unravel the mysteries of the universe, we will have a clearer understanding of how it works, and why it works that way. :sniper:

I tend towards the belief that 'god' - defined through my agnosticism as a superhuman consciousness unknowable to us, which may have created us, and possibly existing beyond the laws which govern us - exists, because I really don't find it all that outlandish considering what we know to be the nature of the universe.

Why does anything have to exist at all?
Good question . Right now I am inclined to believe that there is some fundamental entity: a pool of energy or some mathematical superequation that is represented to us as a universe. Note that this is different from God - this superforce cannot think for itself or change the course of cosmic events.

SUMMARY:
So I think it's not that a law simply helps us to understand the universe; the universe is simply a reflection of that mathematical law (or GUT).

 

[ether]

When we observe the universe, the process of evolution appears to be fundamental to its nature. From a super-heated soup of fundamental particles to a self-conscious entity sitting here typing a post to an internet forum is quite a leap in the organizational structure of the universe. It would be arrogant to think the process ends here with us as the final state. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that this process will continue indefinitely into the future. Where does it end? Unless there is some fundamental law that limits this process, it can only end in "God". Consciousness arose in this process. Is it merely a step on some Hegelian dialectical path? Maybe. Perhaps, it will be superceded by some Nirvana-like state of ultimate oneness, and the ultmate reality will eventually be reduced to vikram's single equation.

On the other hand, maybe time is infinite, and the universe has evolved into "God" an infinite number of times. Maybe the result is Laivasse's superhuman consciousness. Has this consciousness escaped the cycle of infinite rebirths of the universe, and sits as a silent spectator? Or perhaps, God exists in some plane outside our universe, and like a circus performer spinning plates, God manages multiple universes simultaneously. Or perhaps, once "God" is achieved, there is nothing left to do, so God voluntarily dissipates into the next cycle. Or perhaps, the achievement of "God" results in a collapse in the universe and the next Big Bang.

Where do we find meaning in our own small personal stage of this process? The meaning must lie in the struggle. Like Camus' Sisyphus, we must embrace the stone, and rejoice in our own struggle. If meaning lies in what we accomplish, then the universe is unjust because we all do not start life from the same point. Yet, if meaning is tied to the quality of our struggle, then it is available to all mankind.

 

[Dynasty]

What was the name of the russian astronaught? The first man in space? Gah my memory.

I believe his first words were 'I cant see God'.
They used to say that God was above us, high above the clouds. - We invented planes. No God.
They then changed it to that he must be in space, looking over Earth. - You know the rest.
(Ive probably written it wrong but you get the jist of it)

I for one dont believe in God. I dont believe in the Bible, as Noah's Ark has evidence against its truth (yes one reason ISNT enough to justify it as being some random book someone conjured up at all). For the life of me i cant remember the religion, im sure it was some form of muselim kind, but they already had a similar story, years before 'Christ was born'.
Upon scientific inspection, it would be phsyically impossible to fit that many animals in a boat that size anyway..and you cant flame me for expressing an opinion.

I DO belive, however, that everyone needs something to believe IN. Its what keeps us sane. It keeps us going. Call it fait. Call it a belief. But truth be told, you dont need to have scientific proof or to have seen something with your own eyes to believe in it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

What was the name of the russian astronaught? The first man in space? Gah my memory.

Yuri Gagarin. Yeah, I think his words were to that effect.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

When we observe the universe, the process of evolution appears to be fundamental to its nature. From a super-heated soup of fundamental particles to a self-conscious entity sitting here typing a post to an internet forum is quite a leap in the organizational structure of the universe. It would be arrogant to think the process ends here with us as the final state. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that this process will continue indefinitely into the future. Where does it end? Unless there is some fundamental law that limits this process, it can only end in "God". Consciousness arose in this process. Is it merely a step on some Hegelian dialectical path? Maybe. Perhaps, it will be superceded by some Nirvana-like state of ultimate oneness, and the ultmate reality will eventually be reduced to vikram's single equation.

On the other hand, maybe time is infinite, and the universe has evolved into "God" an infinite number of times. Maybe the result is Laivasse's superhuman consciousness. Has this consciousness escaped the cycle of infinite rebirths of the universe, and sits as a silent spectator? Or perhaps, God exists in some plane outside our universe, and like a circus performer spinning plates, God manages multiple universes simultaneously. Or perhaps, once "God" is achieved, there is nothing left to do, so God voluntarily dissipates into the next cycle. Or perhaps, the achievement of "God" results in a collapse in the universe and the next Big Bang.

Where do we find meaning in our own small personal stage of this process? The meaning must lie in the struggle. Like Camus' Sisyphus, we must embrace the stone, and rejoice in our own struggle. If meaning lies in what we accomplish, then the universe is unjust because we all do not start life from the same point. Yet, if meaning is tied to the quality of our struggle, then it is available to all mankind.

Woh, good post. Very insightful, good thoughts on the subject!

 

[DeusExMachina]

When we observe the universe, the process of evolution appears to be fundamental to its nature. From a super-heated soup of fundamental particles to a self-conscious entity sitting here typing a post to an internet forum is quite a leap in the organizational structure of the universe. It would be arrogant to think the process ends here with us as the final state. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that this process will continue indefinitely into the future. Where does it end? Unless there is some fundamental law that limits this process, it can only end in "God". Consciousness arose in this process. Is it merely a step on some Hegelian dialectical path? Maybe. Perhaps, it will be superceded by some Nirvana-like state of ultimate oneness, and the ultmate reality will eventually be reduced to vikram's single equation.

On the other hand, maybe time is infinite, and the universe has evolved into "God" an infinite number of times. Maybe the result is Laivasse's superhuman consciousness. Has this consciousness escaped the cycle of infinite rebirths of the universe, and sits as a silent spectator? Or perhaps, God exists in some plane outside our universe, and like a circus performer spinning plates, God manages multiple universes simultaneously. Or perhaps, once "God" is achieved, there is nothing left to do, so God voluntarily dissipates into the next cycle. Or perhaps, the achievement of "God" results in a collapse in the universe and the next Big Bang.

Where do we find meaning in our own small personal stage of this process? The meaning must lie in the struggle. Like Camus' Sisyphus, we must embrace the stone, and rejoice in our own struggle. If meaning lies in what we accomplish, then the universe is unjust because we all do not start life from the same point. Yet, if meaning is tied to the quality of our struggle, then it is available to all mankind.

You are my new favorite member.

 

[theotherguy]

When we observe the universe, the process of evolution appears to be fundamental to its nature. From a super-heated soup of fundamental particles to a self-conscious entity sitting here typing a post to an internet forum is quite a leap in the organizational structure of the universe. It would be arrogant to think the process ends here with us as the final state. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that this process will continue indefinitely into the future. Where does it end? Unless there is some fundamental law that limits this process, it can only end in "God". Consciousness arose in this process. Is it merely a step on some Hegelian dialectical path? Maybe. Perhaps, it will be superceded by some Nirvana-like state of ultimate oneness, and the ultmate reality will eventually be reduced to vikram's single equation.
.

except for the fact that the process of evolution deals only with living organisms in a system. Its not like organisms just keep getting "better" for the heck of it. They simply adapt to their environment. an organism would never evolve into "god" unless an extreme circumstance made it necessary. Even so, such power could never exist in any organism due to the limits of DNA.

I'm surprised at the common misconception that evolution simply "happens" and that it involves anything other than living organisms. However, I do think that any intelligent species has the potential to reach godlike status through technology given the right circumstances, but I highly doubt something like that happening through evolution in a biological sense.

 

[ether]

The universe has evolved, in the generic sense of the word, from an undifferentiated soup of sub-atomic particles to one in which conscious organisms exist. Even if you think of Evolution in the biological sense, those organisms are part of the universe, and therefore, part of universe's evolution. Perhaps, the universe's evolution can be defined as an increase in structural complexity- from sub-atomic particles, to atoms, to stars to galaxies, to life, to self-conscious life. Maybe this process "just happens", or maybe there is something inherent in the nature of the universe that makes it necessary. Either way, what we observe is a trend toward greater complexity.

Thus far, biological evolution has been fueled by random mutation of the genome and the process of natural selection. We appear to be on the cusp of a pivotal moment in the evolutionary process, namely, the point at which random mutation is replaced by intentional manipulation. It seems quite possible that this could cause a significant increase in the rate of evolutionary progression.

When I consider the history of the universe I see stages. First, the laws of physics applied to inanimate matter. Second, parts of the universe become sentient. Third, sentient organisms become self-aware and consciously manipulate their external environment. Fourth, self-aware organisms consciously manipulate their own internal nature, which is where we appear to be today. This seems to be the critical inflationary stage of the evolutionary process. Once we can manipulate our own nature, we can create a self-reinforcing feedback loop, whereby we create greater intelligence that allows us to create even greater intelligence. Any limitations imposed by the current structure of DNA could presumably be overcome by either biological means, symbiosis of biological and mechanical systems, or some other currently unknown method.

What is the Fifth stage of evolution? As our consciousness/intelligence expands toward infinity, would we not begin to incorporate more and more of the universe into our sense of self? With multiple entities expanding, overlaps might emerge with a partially shared sense of self. The ultimate point of the process would be when each entity expanded to the point that they consisted of the entire universe. At that point, there would be a complete overlap of all entities, and unification of self-identity. In other words, God.

 

[Krajj54]

I don’t like the current state of religion, and I’m not a very good Christian myself in terms of belief in God. Although, even if there is no supreme being, can it be a bad thing to emulate good teachings such as peace, brotherhood, and understanding that is taught through most of the bible? I’m sure someone can refute those claims through some bible verse, but overall, those teachings are well established.

I voted yes. Probably because the idea of God is drilled into my mind, but I think it was simply the idea of God gives me hope, and even if it is false hope, it’s comforting.

(Meh, that probably means I’m weak minded or whatever)

 

[Laivasse]

Fourth, self-aware organisms consciously manipulate their own internal nature, which is where we appear to be today. This seems to be the critical inflationary stage of the evolutionary process. Once we can manipulate our own nature, we can create a self-reinforcing feedback loop, whereby we create greater intelligence that allows us to create even greater intelligence. Any limitations imposed by the current structure of DNA could presumably be overcome by either biological means, symbiosis of biological and mechanical systems, or some other currently unknown method.

As you perhaps know, what you have described here in the 4th and moving onto the 5th stage is very similar to the idea of Technological Singularity. I find it fascinating.

 

[ether]

Very interesting article (Wikipedia is such a great site). I was somewhat familiar with the concepts described, but I had not heard of the term Technological Singularity. My thought process has been influenced by some (rather limited) reading I did on complexity theory 5 years or so ago (e.g., the notion of self-reinforcing feedback loops). Although I hadn't heard of Vinge, his "feedback loop of self-improving intelligence" is exactly the concept I was talking about.

I understand the Neo-Luddite views in the context of our anthropocentric view of the universe. We view ourselves as the highest product of the universe, or at least with that potential. The notion that we will invent intelligent machines that will leave us behind as a "lower" life form is psychologically unacceptable. The question is, will we invent non-human intelligent machines, or will we ourselves become those post-human entities? It seems very unlikely to me that there is some threshold where you add one more transistor and you suddenly have a conscious machine. I think there is a chasm between machines that appear to be conscious and those that are conscious. What exactly triggers consciousness is still a profound mystery.

Caution is certainly warranted in developing the technologies in question, but I think resistance is futile. Technological progress is inevitable barring a catastrophe that sets us back a millenium or annihilates us, and even then I think there is something fundamental in the universe that life would re-emerge and evolve to the same point. It wouldn't be human; we probably only get one shot at this.