What religion are you?

[Sako]

Re: What religion are you?

Scientists almost do this already, they came up with a word called science that refers to a dictionary.com definition of:

"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

You and they said it, "Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world". Not spiritual world. You need more then gadgets to get to God so I think you just proved yourself wrong. What if the sceintists had no proof (which they don't) of many things this world is comprised of or something important in life, what would we have to do, say it doesn't exist like sheeps, believing the sheep herders?

I'm simply aware of the fact that there's way more beyond my attention, and I don't know if it's cuz I'm human, but somehow, that makes me feel small, part of some greater working of things than myself. This is where my spirituality comes from, is this absurd?

No, but when people accept this simple fact and say God doesn't exist, it makes them very funny, not absurd. I'm glad you look up to life and everything, good luck again and don't misjudge anything in this world, its more complicated then you think.

[jgk3]

Re: What religion are you?

You and they said it, "Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world". Not spiritual world. You need more then gadgets to get to God so I think you just proved yourself wrong. What if the sceintists had no proof (which they don't) of many things this world is comprised of or something important in life, what would we have to do, say it doesn't exist like sheeps, believing the sheep herders?



No, but when people accept this simple fact and say God doesn't exist, it makes them very funny, not absurd. I'm glad you look up to life and everything, good luck again and don't misjudge anything in this world, its more complicated then you think.

For the record, when I speak to different people I say different things to accommodate their respective frames of reference Call me lacking integrity, I think it's for the better.

In a spiritual sense, the physical and material world is still spiritual, though one can have the perspective that it is not. You for example are a case of this as you distinguish spiritual between physical/material, even though you get to experience both in a sense, whilst many ardent atheistic scientists in their perspective experience only get to experience physical/material.

To me, everything you experience is on the same plane, which is another reason why I don't like to distinguish myself from anything in particular and why I try to avoid assigning myself a sense of self when it is completely unnecessary and actually repressive towards my inherent interests of giving and sharing to others.

There is nothing to prove or disprove, I am just talking and so are you. We use different assumptions to create our concepts, I don't deny that I do this, and we hope to become understandable to our counterpart, though it is seldom that we can hope to convey our intended message without some degree of empathy for those who have to bear the burden of listening to us, especially when our posts are this long! The other thing that helps people communicate to each other are common frames of reference, whether religion based or science based. Commonly agreed ideas on logical analysis for example help scientists communicate with each other and establish results in a recognizable way. A monk somewhere in the Himalayas with no contact whatsoever to the outside world might realize or discover the same physical/material phenomenon a scientist perceives as scientific truth or fact, but because they use different language to convey the same realizations, the monk might be criticized as a mystic who believes in all sorts of fairy tales and thus, his discovery, even if relevant, should be taken less seriously.

This is the nature of our problems in communication. Differing frames of reference, differing articulation, although we still all seem to abide by logic when we try to account for the patterns we see all around us and inside of us. What might be handy in the big picture is not so much to note who is right or wrong, but rather to note what effects these inquiries and answers produced by different groups of people have on society at large. Modern science for example, has gained the high ground in being involved with regulated production of most of our goods. Challenging modern science today would be challenging all it has produced for human society.

[Stark Evade]

Re: What religion are you?

What if God was not an object of belief but instead, a metaphorical concept used by humans to refer to the totality of all phenomenon around them that could be tested scientifically? Scientists almost do this already, they came up with a word called science that refers to a dictionary.com definition of:

"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

But this leads to the question of... When do things become categorized as physical and material? The easy answer is when their properties can be observed and tested, of course. But in order for one to do this, the object of inquiry needs to be first, noticed. Our attention needs to be on it, does it not? Otherwise we will simply not think of it or any of its workings and thus, it would not have a chance to be assigned material or observable value. I'm sure you, with your logic, could predict based on experience that we will discover things in the future, that we haven't noticed yet with our scientific inquiries thus far, and those things will be observable and testable.

Maybe some people who have a love for science (as I do) will go ahead and call this present lack of knowledge or awareness for an assumed great many phenomenon as, present ignorance? But I will note, based on experience, that I assume there are workings that exist beyond my present attention, as you do, just based on a hunch I guess. How is this not supernatural belief if I am not presently capable of testing or observing something I have no present attention or awareness of?

Perhaps here, positing this supernatural idea (criticize my choice of wording if you will) as so absurd, because I'm not bowing down to it and adhering to a bunch of made up laws based on my belief for something I don't know yet or can test for that matter. I'm simply aware of the fact that there's way more beyond my attention, and I don't know if it's cuz I'm human, but somehow, that makes me feel small, part of some greater working of things than myself. This is where my spirituality comes from, is this absurd?

This is a common hiding place for people trying to justify stupid beliefs. You're obfuscating the meanings of words, making them broad and vague, then applying them to justify beliefs that are specific. Basically, "What if God is a scientific phenomenon? See, God is good! Since Christians believe in God, that belief is credible!" Ultimately, that's how it works out. And it is ridiculous. Just because I decide the definition of a god is an avocado does not make an avocado a god. You're the one making arguments dependent on semantics. Epistemologically, there is absolutely no value in obfuscating and manipulating the meanings of words in this manner. It comes down to what I said in the post to which you originally responded: what is the hypothesis, how do you test it, what are the results, and how do you interpret those results. All supernatural beliefs that people hold stop at "what is the hypothesis." They are not credible beliefs. And calling the Big Bang a god would not make it any less of a Big Bang as a scientific concept and would not increase the truth value of gods. Every time I have heard these arguments, they are always stated with such pride and confidence as if some great philosophical hurdle had been overcome by an unthinkable genius in the mist. It's pathetic and ignorant. The act of making any conclusions about the nature of the universe that are not supported by tested, reviewed, and accepted scientific data is illogical. Period. There is no god. You are alone. Nobody is watching you or protecting you. When you die you will be in complete and utter nothingness for infinity. Nothing out there is judging you, pulling metaphorical strings, reading your thoughts, compelling evolution. There is no reincarnation. There are no chakras. There is no spiritual connection between all things. There are no ghosts. There is no ESP. There is no astrology. Et cetera, et cetera. It's all bunk. These beliefs come from the human mind's discomfort with its own ignorance and lack of control. It has no basis in reality beyond that. Just let it go and enjoy what science discovers over your lifetime.

[Anonymouse]

Re: What religion are you?

This is a common hiding place for people trying to justify stupid beliefs. You're obfuscating the meanings of words, making them broad and vague, then applying them to justify beliefs that are specific. Basically, "What if God is a scientific phenomenon? See, God is good! Since Christians believe in God, that belief is credible!" Ultimately, that's how it works out. And it is ridiculous. Just because I decide the definition of a god is an avocado does not make an avocado a god. You're the one making arguments dependent on semantics. Epistemologically, there is absolutely no value in obfuscating and manipulating the meanings of words in this manner. It comes down to what I said in the post to which you originally responded: what is the hypothesis, how do you test it, what are the results, and how do you interpret those results. All supernatural beliefs that people hold stop at "what is the hypothesis." They are not credible beliefs. And calling the Big Bang a god would not make it any less of a Big Bang as a scientific concept and would not increase the truth value of gods. Every time I have heard these arguments, they are always stated with such pride and confidence as if some great philosophical hurdle had been overcome by an unthinkable genius in the mist. It's pathetic and ignorant. The act of making any conclusions about the nature of the universe that are not supported by tested, reviewed, and accepted scientific data is illogical. Period. There is no god. You are alone. Nobody is watching you or protecting you. When you die you will be in complete and utter nothingness for infinity. Nothing out there is judging you, pulling metaphorical strings, reading your thoughts, compelling evolution. There is no reincarnation. There are no chakras. There is no spiritual connection between all things. There are no ghosts. There is no ESP. There is no astrology. Et cetera, et cetera. It's all bunk. These beliefs come from the human mind's discomfort with its own ignorance and lack of control. It has no basis in reality beyond that. Just let it go and enjoy what science discovers over your lifetime.

Your posts have continued to smack of the same blind zeal and faith you accuse the bible thumpers of. Your desperate clinging to your cherished belief and outright mudslinging of crap toward those that disagree is a manifestation of the insecurity with which you hold these beliefs (yes what you have is a belief, not knowledge). For how dare other people hold a belief which you in your omniscience have deemed to be less credible! Your posts make it seem as if you're omniscient. Is that false? If it is false, then how can you possibly claim to know with conviction and certitude that which you endlessly rant about in this thread?

You create a web of mental gymnastics and semantic technicalities to float for people to play into your intentional confusion of the silly arguments here (which are very simple) that somehow your argument is full proof. This is the problem I have with atheists of your stripe (which makes 90% of atheists) - their hubris and self-importance in thinking that they and they alone have solved life's eternal mystery.

Truth is, your argument is just as much based on limitations of knowledge as is the bible thumpers'. Only the most arrogant morons can claim to have deciphered truth. You have just displayed it.

What part of the fact that science cannot prove that which is beyond its limits do you not understand? What do you not understand about the fact that science is very limited and essentially relegated to those things which comprise the temporal, material world? The reason we can't prove or disprove the existence of God is because this requires provability and falsifiability. Therefore, because we lack the ability to gain evidence of a god (not just evidence, but the ability to gain it), it becomes impossible. That does not mean God exists or God does not exist. Hence any statements about this are completely based on conjecture and guess work - even the atheists' overconfident belching.

[jgk3]

Re: What religion are you?

This is a common hiding place for people trying to justify stupid beliefs. You're obfuscating the meanings of words, making them broad and vague, then applying them to justify beliefs that are specific. Basically, "What if God is a scientific phenomenon? See, God is good! Since Christians believe in God, that belief is credible!" Ultimately, that's how it works out. And it is ridiculous. Just because I decide the definition of a god is an avocado does not make an avocado a god. You're the one making arguments dependent on semantics. Epistemologically, there is absolutely no value in obfuscating and manipulating the meanings of words in this manner. It comes down to what I said in the post to which you originally responded: what is the hypothesis, how do you test it, what are the results, and how do you interpret those results. All supernatural beliefs that people hold stop at "what is the hypothesis." They are not credible beliefs. And calling the Big Bang a god would not make it any less of a Big Bang as a scientific concept and would not increase the truth value of gods. Every time I have heard these arguments, they are always stated with such pride and confidence as if some great philosophical hurdle had been overcome by an unthinkable genius in the mist. It's pathetic and ignorant.

The act of making any conclusions about the nature of the universe that are not supported by tested, reviewed, and accepted scientific data is illogical. Period. There is no god. You are alone. Nobody is watching you or protecting you. When you die you will be in complete and utter nothingness for infinity. Nothing out there is judging you, pulling metaphorical strings, reading your thoughts, compelling evolution. There is no reincarnation. There are no chakras. There is no spiritual connection between all things. There are no ghosts. There is no ESP. There is no astrology. Et cetera, et cetera. It's all bunk. These beliefs come from the human mind's discomfort with its own ignorance and lack of control. It has no basis in reality beyond that. Just let it go and enjoy what science discovers over your lifetime.

Illogical, period? And if you have experienced anything that defies peer review (which as we have seen can be quite arbitrarily controlled by market/politics), you are behaving in the realm of illogic?

For the record, I believe in none of the stereotypical claims you associated with God and am not trying to use the "science is God" to prop them up in any way whatsoever, though perhaps you got me with your artillery barrage on these stereotypes by attacking spiritual connectedness. However, I will question this... "you" idea. This idea of self.

You are alone

What is a "you" based on cognitive scientific analysis? Is it not a mental construction? What does this projected "operating system" we call "the self" require in order to operate? What would you suggest it's designed for, considering that it includes a God faculty in the head, as well as a logic faculty?

What would you suggest it was designed for if science can teach us to believe that 30,000 years ago, we essentially had the same brain types and they allowed us to excel in creating thriving human societies whenever there wasn't a terrible ice age. We hunted wild game with innovative weapons. We developed a highly sophisticated vocal apparatus due to the lowering of the pharynx in our neck. We were obviously designed to behave in certain ways and not others( as they were either out of our physical abilities' range or they would lead to hazardous rates of premature death). These boundaries were followed by those who were to lead the archetypal human life in their respectively applicable environments, and would be able to pass on their genes, no? This is the healthy state.

So why the hell do we have a God faculty? What, is this it some kind of joke? An accident?

Or rather, would you see it served its purpose for us at one point in our evolution, and is now obsoleted by our present knowledge and technology in being able to provide answers for the phenomenon we have questions about? After all, how productive was science (by modern standards) before humans began writing their languages down? And where do you see yourself and the scientific tradition in this scheme of diachronic environmental evolution?

Could you be so rash as to claim that belief in the supernatural has no inherent value if people not just depended on it, but were born to think about it for so long? Why was this tendency so popular anyway, solely because people were weak and ignorant? Or did it help play a role in establishing flourishing societies with political and religious nuclei that could help to regulate the society's resources in order to increase its chances of survival against that of its opponents or rivals?

If all of mankind were devoid of supernatural belief from now on and relied solely on "logic" to construct their beliefs in all observable phenomenon, what would become of us? What direction would mankind head in, could you predict it? Is it necessarily better? If so, in what ways? And what are some of the shortcomings you could predict?

[Anonymouse]

Re: What religion are you?

If all of mankind were devoid of supernatural belief from now on and relied solely on "logic" to construct their beliefs in all observable phenomenon, what would become of us? What direction would mankind head in, could you predict it? Is it necessarily better? If so, in what ways? And what are some of the shortcomings you could predict?

These are questions the simple-minded would not dare to venture into because for the simple minded, only simple explanations will suffice. To them, it is a Manichean world of God or no-God or logic and illogic.

Logic is simply a perspective. These people cannot distinguish the simple truth and nuance of life that in this world, things just are. There is the perspective of logic, and rationality, and then there is also the perspective of illogic and irrationality. Man is capable of both. That does not mean one is necessarily better than the other (although the logical zealots will claim it is and display their insecurity with this), it just means both are part of existence and ergo part of our blueprint and organic nature. But to these ideologues, logic occupies a superior position simply because it must, not because it is demonstrated to be superior. For what determines which is superior? To establish the superiority of logic necessarily involves using the criteria and methods that are relevant and particular only to logic, not to something that is not logic. So how can you compare that to man's other side, his tendency of irrationality?

In other words, it is us humans who ascribe value to these things and give meaning to whether logic or illogic will occupy more of an important role for us. These things do not come in prepackaged and inherently defined ways stating that this is better than the other. The sooner man recognizes his own limitations the sooner he can conquer the problem of his own ignorance.

[yerazhishda]

Re: What religion are you?

These are questions the simple-minded would not dare to venture into because for the simple minded, only simple explanations will suffice. To them, it is a Manichean world of God or no-God or logic and illogic.

Logic is simply a perspective. These people cannot distinguish the simple truth and nuance of life that in this world, things just are. There is the perspective of logic, and rationality, and then there is also the perspective of illogic and irrationality. Man is capable of both. That does not mean one is necessarily better than the other (although the logical zealots will claim it is and display their insecurity with this), it just means both are part of existence and ergo part of our blueprint and organic nature. But to these ideologues, logic occupies a superior position simply because it must, not because it is demonstrated to be superior. For what determines which is superior? To establish the superiority of logic necessarily involves using the criteria and methods that are relevant and particular only to logic, so how can you compare that to man's other side of irrationality?

In other words, it is us humans who ascribe value to these things and give meaning to whether logic or illogic will occupy more of an important role for us. These things do not come in prepackaged and inherently defined ways stating that this is better than the other. The sooner man recognizes his own limitations the sooner he can conquer the problem of his own ignorance.

In the process, they commit the same fallacy that they accuse the fundamentalists of committing.

Thank you, Anonymouse. This is precisely why I rejected Objectivism; I realized that in all of her fourty years of philosophizing, Ayn Rand could never 'prove' why logic/reason was superior to illogic or why reason was necessary for survival. However, I still think she was much better at making the logic argument than some of the 'pop-atheist' dogmatists like Richard Dawkins.

It is high time for all of us to realize that the days of strict philosophical systems based on pure reason are over. This started 250 years ago with Kant yet people are still adamant about making absolute claims, on either side of the logic coin. This is not to say that logic isn't important or valuable, it is. But we need to recognize it for what it is: one way of understanding the world. We must not make it into a humanistic religion like Marxism or Objectivism.

As a side note, I also find this quote from Thomas Merton to be of relevance:

"A man of faith without doubt [logic] is not a man of faith".

[Anonymouse]

Re: What religion are you?

Thank you, Anonymouse. This is precisely why I rejected Objectivism; I realized that in all of her fourty years of philosophizing, Ayn Rand could never 'prove' why logic/reason was superior to illogic or why reason was necessary for survival. However, I still think she was much better at making the logic argument than some of the 'pop-atheist' dogmatists like Richard Dawkins.

It is high time for all of us to realize that the days of strict philosophical systems based on pure reason are over. This started 250 years ago with Kant yet people are still adamant about making absolute claims, on either side of the logic coin. This is not to say that logic isn't important or valuable, it is. But we need to recognize it for what it is: one way of understanding the world. We must not make it into a humanistic religion like Marxism or Objectivism.

As a side note, I also find this quote from Thomas Merton to be of relevance:

"A man of faith without doubt [logic] is not a man of faith".

As Butler Shaffer, one of my favorite columnists, stated about Rand:

Her epistemology – the base of her philosophy – is wholly untenable to anyone with an understanding of how the mind actually functions. While I believe that we live in an objective universe, none of us can ever know the nature of that reality other than through the subjective processes by which our mind organizes its experiences. We do not learn about the world in the mechanistic fashion of a video camera recording sensory impressions. Rather, we interact with our world, organizing our experiences into categories and concepts by which we make comparisons and contrasts. It is the mind, alone, that creates these categories; they do not exist beyond the boundaries of our mind. What we think of as the world is simply that: thoughts about the world. In the words of Arthur Eddington: "mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience; all else is remote inference."

However, I must stress how important the work of Atlas Shrugged is for its value as recognizing the value of the individual over the horde and mob. In that respect, her contribution was immense. Where she went off was committing the same fallacy that most people commit, when they succumb to an ideology that claims to have answers to everything and do not recognize man's inherent limitations.

[Sako]

Re: What religion are you?

It has no basis in reality beyond that. Just let it go and enjoy what science discovers over your lifetime.

Haha, you’re as funny as your avatar. Ok, what do you believe in then??? When there was no science, people lived more freely in many respects then they did now. All this science has hurdled people into becoming non-believers, thinking they can do anything. All this xxxx is material and you are going to DIE one day and embrace that cold fact. There is reincarnation otherwise half this world deserves to go to hell because of all they do. You don’t really understand that sentence properly, we are going to DIE and your views are as dumb as they can be, you’ve hit a record, congratulation’s. What do you mean, EVOLUTION? And even then, WHO DECIDES whether we die or go into evolution, or take birth in a family? Your science is going to destroy this world soon if they aren’t careful and your telling me to let it go and enjoy the “the fruits” of science? I’m not against it but I respect the creator more then the created. Those bastards think they are more powerful then anyone because of their creations, when they can’t even identify the created. You’re views are sad and I feel sorry for you. You live in nothingness already. It’s like nothing exists at all to you besides science and until you stop looking at the tip of your nose, the rest of the world won’t be clear to you. These little scientific gadgets have a creator and this entire universe doesn’t??? Hahahahaha. If you don’t like something, stop saying it doesn’t exist. –click- -click- -post deleted from my mind-.

For the record, when I speak to different people I say different things to accommodate their respective frames of reference Call me lacking integrity, I think it's for the better.

Sorry, I forgot to laugh. No matter what you do bro, the definition of science remains the same just like no matter what you try to say, life still goes on and we’ll have to die one day, and that day may be today. Then we’ll see if there is God or if there is just emptiness. I can’t stop laughing at how people doubt that everything has a creator. Sheesh, it’s a natural fact.

In a spiritual sense, the physical and material world is still spiritual, though one can have the perspective that it is not. You for example are a case of this as you distinguish spiritual between physical/material, even though you get to experience both in a sense, whilst many ardent atheistic scientists in their perspective experience only get to experience physical/material. To me, everything you experience is on the same plane, which is another reason why I don't like to distinguish myself from anything in particular and why I try to avoid assigning myself a sense of self when it is completely unnecessary and actually repressive towards my inherent interests of giving and sharing to others.

You are simply stating the obvious. Giving and sharing won’t change if you believe in God but will if you don’t. Just like if a person isn’t as a good son at home, as he is in the outside world, people won’t respect him as much but still will. There was a kid who was a guy I remember who was a great musician but he was so terrible at home that people didn’t respect him as much. You verbally say God doesn’t exist and continue to be dazzled by his works. And one more thing, you’re view on everything being on the same plane is simply … delicately put … ridiculous. Would you compare a bicycle with a car on the same plane? Would you compare a good movie with a bad movie? Can you compare a tree with its fruits? You look at everything as one but you are wrong here. When you compare Spiritual and Material, you can say that everything is on the same plane but you aren’t the one that decides that. I can say time doesn’t exist but soon I’ll be under the dirt. You decide for yourself but the facts remain no matter if you use your brains or not.

There is nothing to prove or disprove, I am just talking and so are you. We use different assumptions to create our concepts, I don't deny that I do this

Well that’s good because I don’t CREATE concepts, you create concepts. I agree with facts, you simply believe in what you want to believe rather then what we need to believe. We aren’t in this world to enjoy, that’s why we don’t live forever. No science will ever change that.

Especially when our posts are this long!

There are different types of people. Some require long posts and some require short posts.

Commonly agreed ideas on logical analysis for example help scientists communicate with each other and establish results in a recognizable way.

Because they see and believe. If we all saw God, we would all agree that he exists. Science isn’t something new. You just manipulate objects, particles, etc. to get what you need to understand something or create something in your own way. God can’t be created, he created us and for a reason. You need to not manipulate the world to understand God. No object or gadget can take you to God just like there is a point on a mountain that must be measured on foot rather then with a car. People, out of their depression on not being able to understand the world, created science. It is a part of life but now, scientists have put on their robes and boldly try to prove God exists or not. They can’t even prove simple facts and they want to prove the big facts. I know scientists who believe in God and those that don’t so I’m not talking about all of them.

A monk somewhere in the Himalayas with no contact whatsoever to the outside world might realize or discover the same physical/material phenomenon a scientist perceives as scientific truth or fact, but because they use different language to convey the same realizations, the monk might be criticized as a mystic who believes in all sorts of fairy tales and thus, his discovery, even if relevant, should be taken less seriously.

No, you would take it less seriously because you like to live in something I like to call …. pointlessness. A monk would never even want to say something regarding the material world, that’s why he lives in the Himalayas. The funny thing is, he lives much better then we do. Isn’t it ironic? I know a person who lives completely against the laws of science, no scientist has been able to prove how he could survive for so long and I’m talking about more then a decade, not a month or two. Who do you think is helping him, SCIENCE, BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY? You fail to agree with what you don’t understand and the funny fact was that those scientists HAD to agree that something unnatural or what I like to call, supernatural, was helping this man survive because they could see him. According to them, he was a “solid” object and could be called natural, lol.

This is the nature of our problems in communication.

Truth is, there is no problem, there are just people who never will agree no matter what you say because when they realize the truth, they hate themselves for living in ridiculous way their entire lives. It’s never too later and no one is going to kill you. Life is difficult and the whole point of life is not suffering but discovery and not only in a scientific way.

What might be handy in the big picture is not so much to note who is right or wrong, but rather to note what effects these inquiries and answers produced by different groups of people have on society at large.

A gun was fired in the head of my friend’s, friends` head recently in Miami. Now, who cares what the effects were. We need to catch the culprit and not look at what was right or wrong because the WRONG is OBVIOUS just like what you say is OBVIOUS but you condense it down and think you can describe everything in a few paragraphs. What you say is absurd sometimes and does not necessarily lack communicating skills.

Modern science for example, has gained the high ground in being involved with regulated production of most of our goods.

And we can see its side effects playing out everyday. There was a time when science was conducted but God still had its place in the world. People have become so stupid that they can completely remove God from the picture although they can still feel that they are wrong in many ways.

Challenging modern science today would be challenging all it has produced for human society.

I don’t need to challenge science, there isn't really much to challenge. Science is nothing compared to the science of God, the science of this universe, the science of human life. The point of life isn’t to make it better, its to understand the point of life and get the f*** off this world. Remember that simple fact in the long run. And you didn’t even answer one line in my entire previous post. I broke down every silly argument you threw at me although there were a few nice things you said.

The sooner man recognizes his own limitations the sooner he can conquer the problem of his own ignorance.

Kudos, my onion loving friend. This is a PROVEN FACT.

[Sip]

Re: What religion are you?

I can’t stop laughing at how people doubt that everything has a creator. Sheesh, it’s a natural fact.

Just because I am creating this post, it doesn't mean I am God.