Why are you an Atheist?

[Left Coast]

In this case the assertion is that God exists whether we imagine [him] or not. That means [he] exists in the same way a real thing or phenomenon exists, which means [he]'s part of nature.

I think that's a big assumption, and I don't know how you would demonstrate that. How do you show that everything that exists outside your head is part of nature, ie that nothing exists that we can't observe or measure?

Yet no one believes that. There's no definition of God that treats God as real, If there were, we'd know what we were talking about and we could go looking for God, confident that if we found [him] we could tell [he] was God. Thus the phrase 'real God' has no real referent ─ doesn't denote anything real ─ and that's the heart of the problem.

I think there actually are physical descriptions of some gods IIRC, but I agree mostly that's not how they're conceived.

How can there be real Gods if no one knows what a real God is? The expression 'real God' is meaningless.

I think theists have definitions for God, they're just not physical/natural. So that gets us back to the fundamental question: is everything that exists outside our heads physical? Can we detect everything that exists with our physical senses, or are there things beyond our ability to perceive them? And how would we demonstrate that?

I respectfully disagree. First, no objective test can distinguish the 'supernatural', the 'spiritual', the 'divine' or the 'immaterial' from the imaginary.

No physical test, that's true. Does that mean no such thing exists?

Second, as to semantics, EITHER the word 'God' denotes something real / has a real referent OR it doesn't and therefore the expression 'real God' is meaningless. Nothing tricky, dodgy, oblique, obscure there.

And IF it denotes something real, then being real it's in nature and it has a description / definition such that if we find an example, we can tell whether it's what we're looking for or not.

Again, I think the fundamental question needs answering: how do we tell that everything in all of existence is detectable empirically? It would require omniscience to make that claim.

One further point. There's no definition of 'godness', the quality that God would have and a superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time, and so on, would lack. If God is only a word meaning superscientist, then instead of worshiping God, we should be making every effort to find out what God knows that we don't, no?

On that I'd tend to agree.

 

[dfnj]

Want to know more about Atheism..

I am an atheist because I am sick and tired of people pretending they are speaking for God when in reality it is just selfishly motivated or thoughts of sociopaths idolized in scripture.

For example, the killing of infants is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

In what Universe is the dashing of infants against the rocks morally okay?

Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master
was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

As if my wife would ever allow me to have a concubine. Also, I don't understand why theists do not find it a little strange if the Bible were the absolute truth and word of God that having a concubine would be morally okay. And equally alarming the so called word of God is implying sending someone out to be raped is morally okay!

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

How can theists think morality is absolute when the Bible, supposedly the word of God, got the morality of slavery wrong!

I am atheist because I am sick of people pretending to know the mind of God. I am sick and tired of people pretending to speak for God by quoting scripture. Nobody knows the mind of God. God's being is incomprehensible. You can't put words to it. And since you can't put words to what God's being is then God doesn't exist as an anthropomorphic projection. We are NOT created in God's image because none of us has omnipotent powers!

I am an atheist because I accept the atheist's argument there is no evidence for the existence of an anthropomorphic God.

I am atheist because every bible ever written is inaccurate, incomplete, full of inconsistencies, and supports meaningless superstitions like the slitting of a goat's throat will gain your favor with God. I'm done with religion unless I write my own.

The way we treat our animals is just one step away from how we treat each other!

Leviticus 16:5
"He shall take from the congregation of the sons of Israel two male goats for a sin offering and one ram for a burnt offering.
Leviticus 3:12
'Moreover, if his offering is a goat, then he shall offer it before the LORD,
Leviticus 4:23
if his sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring for his offering a goat, a male without defect.
Leviticus 9:3
"Then to the sons of Israel you shall speak, saying, 'Take a male goat for a sin offering, and a calf and a lamb, both one year old, without defect, for a burnt offering,
Leviticus 23:19
'You shall also offer one male goat for a sin offering and two male lambs one year old for a sacrifice of peace offerings.
Numbers 7:16
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:22
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:28
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:34
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:40
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:46
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:52
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:58
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:64
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:70
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:76
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:82
one male goat for a sin offering;
Numbers 7:87
all the oxen for the burnt offering twelve bulls, all the rams twelve, the male lambs one year old with their grain offering twelve, and the male goats for a sin offering twelve;
Numbers 15:24
then it shall be, if it is done unintentionally, without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one bull for a burnt offering, as a soothing aroma to the LORD, with its grain offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one male goat for a sin offering.
Numbers 28:15
'And one male goat for a sin offering to the LORD; it shall be offered with its drink offering in addition to the continual burnt offering.
Numbers 28:22
and one male goat for a sin offering to make atonement for you.
Numbers 29:5
'Offer one male goat for a sin offering, to make atonement for you,
Numbers 29:11
one male goat for a sin offering, besides the sin offering of atonement and the continual burnt offering and its grain offering, and their drink offerings.
Numbers 29:16
and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, its grain offering and its drink offering.
Numbers 29:19
and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering and its grain offering, and their drink offerings.
Numbers 29:22
and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering and its grain offering and its drink offering.
Numbers 29:25
and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, its grain offering and its drink offering.
Numbers 29:28
and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering and its grain offering and its drink offering.
Numbers 29:31
and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, its grain offering and its drink offerings.
Numbers 29:34
and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering, its grain offering and its drink offering.
Numbers 29:38
and one male goat for a sin offering, besides the continual burnt offering and its grain offering and its drink offering.
Ezekiel 45:23
"During the seven days of the feast he shall provide as a burnt offering to the LORD seven bulls and seven rams without blemish on every day of the seven days, and a male goat daily for a sin offering.
Numbers 28:30
also one male goat to make atonement for you.
Leviticus 4:28
if his sin which he has committed is made known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without defect, for his sin which he has committed.
Numbers 15:27
'Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering.
Ezekiel 43:25
'For seven days you shall prepare daily a goat for a sin offering; also a young bull and a ram from the flock, without blemish, shall be prepared.
Ezekiel 43:22
'On the second day you shall offer a male goat without blemish for a sin offering, and they shall cleanse the altar as they cleansed it with the bull.

 

[blü 2]

I think that's a big assumption, and I don't know how you would demonstrate that. How do you show that everything that exists outside your head is part of nature, ie that nothing exists that we can't observe or measure?

Everything we can't observe is imaginary, even the Higgs boson, until we do observe it. What else can it be?

I think there actually are physical descriptions of some gods IIRC, but I agree mostly that's not how they're conceived.

Fair comment.

I think theists have definitions for God, they're just not physical/natural.

Then do we agree they're imaginary? If not, what are they?

So that gets us back to the fundamental question: is everything that exists outside our heads physical? Can we detect everything that exists with our physical senses, or are there things beyond our ability to perceive them? And how would we demonstrate that?

Indeed the world external to the self is full of unknown unknowns, but that doesn't make any particular fancy real ─ it can only be shown to exist as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain. To show it's real, it must be observed. That's where the Higgs boson is an example right on the point.

No physical test, that's true. Does that mean no such thing exists?

It means (a) we have no reason to think it does, and (b) even if we think it does, it's still an hypothesis, still imaginary like the Higgs boson, until we catch the rascal.

Again, I think the fundamental question needs answering: how do we tell that everything in all of existence is detectable empirically?

Science, which relies on empiricism and induction, knows very well that nothing comes with a guarantee, no conclusion is absolute, everything is just the best opinion of the best minds for the time being. But that recipe has brought about all the fruits of science we see around us, and nothing else has gone close to matching it, so its ultimate justification is that it works, and has no serious rival.

It would require omniscience to make that claim.

How does God know [he]'s omniscient? How does [he] know there aren't things [he] doesn't know?

Outside this sentence, there are no absolute statements.

 

[Left Coast]

Everything we can't observe is imaginary, even the Higgs boson, until we do observe it. What else can it be?

It can be real but simply outside our current awareness, can't it? You're speaking as though our awareness brings things into existence. Do you really think things don't exist unless you're aware of them? For example, do you think your house doesn't have termites living in the walls until you discover them?

Then do we agree they're imaginary? If not, what are they?

They're defined as non-physical. Which I agree is hard to wrap your mind around, but that's the whole reason I don't know how anyone could conclude they know for a fact they don't exist.

Indeed the world external to the self is full of unknown unknowns, but that doesn't make any particular fancy real ─ it can only be shown to exist as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain. To show it's real, it must be observed. That's where the Higgs boson is an example right on the point.

I completely agree. But just because we haven't shown something is real, doesn't mean it isn't. Which means if we haven't shown that something does exist, but also haven't shown that it doesn't, we're left in agnostic unbelief. The thing might exist, we don't know, but we don't believe till we see the evidence for it.

It means (a) we have no reason to think it does, and (b) even if we think it does, it's still an hypothesis, still imaginary like the Higgs boson, until we catch the rascal.

This gets back to the same point as earlier, where you're speaking as though our discovery of a thing causes it to come into existence. I just don't buy that.

Science, which relies on empiricism and induction, knows very well that nothing comes with a guarantee, no conclusion is absolute, everything is just the best opinion of the best minds for the time being. But that recipe has brought about all the fruits of science we see around us, and nothing else has gone close to matching it, so its ultimate justification is that it works, and has no serious rival.

I agree completely. But that doesn't really answer the question I asked. How do we tell that everything in all of existence is empirically detectable? The fact that science is our most effective tool at navigating reality doesn't allow us to conclude its descriptions are exhaustive.

How does God know [he]'s omniscient? How does [he] know there aren't things [he] doesn't know?

No idea. I suppose if he's omniscient, he'd know?

 

[ecco]

All of them? Every single one? Including ones you haven't even heard of?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No? I didn't think so.

Exactly enough to justify the claim being made. If you want to claim that every single deity ever proposed is not real, you'd have to demonstrate that. Can you?

Not necessary. Can you give any rational reason to believe that there is such a thing as a real god? Do you have any evidence to support that position? You don't make the same assertions about tooth fairies do you? Ask yourself why the difference. The reason is that you had ingrained into you, as all of us have, that there is a God. Later in life, you realized that you didn't believe in any of the gods you were aware of. But because of the information instilled into you in your very formative years, you still suspect that maybe, somehow there could be a real god. I doubt you suspect that maybe, somehow there could be a real tooth fairy. Again, ask yourself why the difference?

No. My belief about god(s) is independent of your proposed notion of a "psychic snowflake," as I held the same position before you proposed it as I do now. To be clear, I don't know if a god is even possible, that's not my position. I have no idea how to evaluate the possibility or probability of something we have absolutely no access to. Which is why I have no idea how anyone could ever claim to know definitively that such a thing does not exist, much less that it's impossible for it to exist.

You don't hold that position in regard to tooth fairies, Santas or psychic snowflakes. Look in the mirror. Ask yourself why. Why can you discard most sets of myths and still cling to one?


People have to work very hard to rid themselves of the regional accents that were part of the language they learned in their formative years.

 

[Left Coast]

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No? I didn't think so.

This is exactly the kind of reasoning theists use. "Well you can't prove he doesn't exist!" Sorry, the onus is on the person making the claim. If you claim every deity ever proposed is imaginary, you need to demonstrate that. Can you?

Not necessary. Can you give any rational reason to believe that there is such a thing as a real god? Do you have any evidence to support that position?

No, which is why I don't believe in a god.

You don't make the same assertions about tooth fairies do you?

No, because a tooth fairy is a different kind of entity than an immaterial consciousness that exists outside spacetime.

Ask yourself why the difference.

Because of their definitions.

You don't hold that position in regard to tooth fairies, Santas or psychic snowflakes. Look in the mirror. Ask yourself why. Why can you discard most sets of myths and still cling to one?

I don't see myself clinging to a set of myths. I see myself honestly admitting my own ignorance and the limits of what I can know.

People have to work very hard to rid themselves of the regional accents that were part of the language they learned in their formative years.

That I agree with.

 

[blü 2]

It can be real but simply outside our current awareness, can't it? You're speaking as though our awareness brings things into existence. Do you really think things don't exist unless you're aware of them? For example, do you think your house doesn't have termites living in the walls until you discover them?

We can hypothesize, as we did with the Higgs. But the Higgs was hypothetical, not real, before we found it, and it was real afterwards. That's to say, truth is not absolute but it is retrospective.

But thgre is no coherent hypothesis for a real God. We have no idea ─ we have not coherently conceptualized ─ what a real God is, only imaginary gods.

They're defined as non-physical. Which I agree is hard to wrap your mind around, but that's the whole reason I don't know how anyone could conclude they know for a fact they don't exist.

Because if they're not physical then they're conceptual / imaginary. For instance, 'justice' doesn't exist except as a concept, the abstraction from instances of individual decisions we judge to be just. 'Two' doesn't exist except as a concept, abstracted from instances where we choose what to count (eg chickens) and the field in which they're to be counted (eg the chickens in the barn) and the enumeration yields two chickens.

I completely agree. But just because we haven't shown something is real, doesn't mean it isn't.

This is the point that I keep coming back to. God is not a something because God has no definition appropriate to a something. The concept of a real God is incoherent, incapable of denoting anything real because it's meaningless.

This gets back to the same point as earlier, where you're speaking as though our discovery of a thing causes it to come into existence. I just don't buy that.

I can only repeat, God is not a something because 'real God' has no definition appropriate to a real something. It's impossible to specify WHAT the words 'real God' are intended to denote. As I said, God is worse off than the unicorn in this respect.

No idea. I suppose if he's omniscient, he'd know?

And how does God know [he] didn't pop into existence, memories fully formed, universes already created, only last Thursday? How does God know [he]'s not an element in a Tron game played by a hyperbeing, not a dream in the mind of an überThing? Claims like that are unfalsifiable, therefore not part of science. Science is empiricism and induction. It deals with the real.


One last thought. Let's you and I go out into reality and look for a real God.

Tell me what we're actually looking for, because I genuinely have no idea.

 

[Left Coast]

We can hypothesize, as we did with the Higgs. But the Higgs was hypothetical, not real, before we found it, and it was real afterwards. That's to say, truth is not absolute but it is retrospective.

So again, I want to make sure I'm understanding you clearly. Are you saying that things aren't real, they don't really exist, until we discover them? So the mess my cat made out of his litter box today doesn't exist until I get home and see that it's there? This strikes me as profoundly odd ontology, particularly for a materialist.

But thgre is no coherent hypothesis for a real God. We have no idea ─ we have not coherently conceptualized ─ what a real God is, only imaginary gods.

A real God is, generally, a supernatural being or consciousness that exists outside of spacetime. I agree that's not empirically testable in the way a scientific hypothesis is, but I don't see how it's incoherent.

Because if they're not physical then they're conceptual / imaginary.

How did you determine that? How did you determine that everything that exists is physical?

This is the point that I keep coming back to. God is not a something because God has no definition appropriate to a something. The concept of a real God is incoherent, incapable of denoting anything real because it's meaningless.

I don't see how, sorry. The concept of God is something non-physical (usually), but that doesn't make it incoherent. But I think this would make a good thread topic of its own, I'm going to start one.

And how does God know [he] didn't pop into existence, memories fully formed, universes already created, only last Thursday? How does God know [he]'s not an element in a Tron game played by a hyperbeing, not a dream in the mind of an überThing? Claims like that are unfalsifiable, therefore not part of science. Science is empiricism and induction. It deals with the real.

I agree these claims are not falsifiable nor empirical. But I haven't seen the case made that only empirically verifiable objects are real.

One last thought. Let's you and I go out into reality and look for a real God.

Tell me what we're actually looking for, because I genuinely have no idea.

As I said, I don't think there's a way for us to go out and find one, since our only access to reality is through our senses and God is conceived as something that can't be apprehended that way. The issue is that we have no way of knowing, one way or another, if things exist which are beyond our ability to perceive them.

 

[blü 2]

So again, I want to make sure I'm understanding you clearly. Are you saying that things aren't real, they don't really exist, until we discover them?

In effect, yes. We may reasonably hypothesize their existence, we may see in retrospect that they existed earlier, but we have no basis for asserting their actual existence until they're observed (directly or by instruments).

So the mess my cat made out of his litter box today doesn't exist until I get home and see that it's there?

You don't think it exists, and you have no basis for asserting it exists, until you observe it ─ and then it exists retrospectively. Of course, if someone rings you earlier and tells you, we have the earlier observation to inform us.

A real God is, generally, a supernatural being or consciousness that exists outside of spacetime. I agree that's not empirically testable in the way a scientific hypothesis is, but I don't see how it's incoherent.

It's incoherent because it contradicts itself ─ 'supernatural' is indistinguishable from 'imaginary' and 'imaginary' (meaning, purely imaginary, having no objective counterpart) isn't real.

It's also incoherent because there is no definition of a real God. We don't know what we'd be looking for if God were real, we don't know what real thing we'd be intending to denote when we said God. Once again, contrast that to our knowing what a unicorn would be.

How did you determine that? How did you determine that everything that exists is physical?

First, I assume three things. And I assume them because I can't demonstrate they're correct unless I've already assumed they're correct ─ that a world exists external to the self, that our senses are capable of informing us of that world and that reason is a valid tool. (By posting here, you've already shown that you share all those assumptions.) Then I look at reality, the world external to the self, to see what's in it. This makes it easy to observe that there's no such place as 'outside nature' out there ─ everything out there is nature, the realm of the physical sciences. If there's more, they'll find it, because they're the only ones seriously looking, and then that too will be part of nature.

Meanwhile, back within the self, all kinds of ideas can be floated. But if they don't have a real counterpart, then they're conceptual / imaginary only. As I said, no objective test can distinguish the supernatural, the spiritual, the divine or the immaterial from the purely imaginary. And the purely imaginary is inside, subjective, conceptual, imagined, whereas it has to exist outside to be real.

As I said, I don't think there's a way for us to go out and find one, since our only access to reality is through our senses and God is conceived as something that can't be apprehended that way.

That is, God isn't out there, [he]'s inside, subjective, conceptual, imagined. [He]'s not real.

 

[Left Coast]

In effect, yes. We may reasonably hypothesize their existence, we may see in retrospect that they existed earlier, but we have no basis for asserting their actual existence until they're observed (directly or by instruments).

I agree that we don't have a basis for asserting it exists until we have evidence, but that doesn't mean it doesn't. It seems incoherent (since we're on the topic) to assert that a thing didn't objectively exist in the past until I discovered evidence in the future that it existed in the past. Isn't it more reasonable to say that something existed, and I simply didn't know it at the time?

It's incoherent because it contradicts itself ─ 'supernatural' is indistinguishable from 'imaginary' and 'imaginary' (meaning, purely imaginary, having no objective counterpart) isn't real.

It's also incoherent because there is no definition of a real God. We don't know what we'd be looking for if God were real, we don't know what real thing we'd be intending to denote when we said God. Once again, contrast that to our knowing what a unicorn would be.
First, I assume three things. And I assume them because I can't demonstrate they're correct unless I've already assumed their correct ─ that a world exists external to the self, that our senses are capable of informing us of that world and that reason is a valid tool. Then I look at reality, the world external to the self, to see what's in it. This makes it easy to observe that there's no such place as 'outside nature' out there ─ everything out there is nature, the realm of the physical sciences. If there's more, they'll find it, because they're the only ones seriously looking, and then that too will be part of nature.

Meanwhile, back within the self, all kinds of ideas can be floated. But if they don't have a real counterpart, then they're conceptual / imaginary only. As I said, no objective test can distinguish the supernatural, the spiritual, the divine or the immaterial from the purely imaginary. And the purely imaginary is inside, subjective, conceptual, imagined, whereas it has to exist outside to be real.
That is, God isn't out there, [he]'s inside, subjective, conceptual, imagined. [He]'s not real.

I created a new thread to discuss this idea further and probably didn't give your argument its due nuance, so feel free to correct me there. I don't know how reason and your senses informed you that there is no such place as "outside nature," since your senses have no ability to ascertain that information, by definition.

 

[ecco]

No, because a tooth fairy is a different kind of entity than an immaterial consciousness that exists outside spacetime.

How do you know what exists outside spacetime? You don't. Yet you make the not-very-rational decision that a somehow god does and a tooth fairy doesn't. This in spite of the fact that children hope the tooth fairy will come and adults pray that god will come.

I don't see myself clinging to a set of myths. I see myself honestly admitting my own ignorance and the limits of what I can know.

Well, yes you are still clinging to one of the myths that were instilled into you during childhood. At this point in your life probably nothing will change that.

 

[ecco]

But the Higgs was hypothetical, not real, before we found it, and it was real afterwards.

The Higgs boson existed before our solar system began to form. It was as real then as it is now.

The earth was a sphere when the dinosaurs roamed. Puny man's knowledge does not make things real.

 

[blü 2]

The Higgs boson existed before our solar system began to form. It was as real then as it is now.

The earth was a sphere when the dinosaurs roamed. Puny man's knowledge does not make things real.

I hold with the 'correspondence' view of truth, that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. But our understanding of that reality changes, and eg as physics changes, so does truth. For example it was once true that the earth is flat and the sun &c go round it; that fire was due to the presence of phlogiston in substances; that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether; that the earth's crust was unified and integral; and now it's not.

That's to say, truth is retrospective, but not absolute.

The Higgs boson was a hypothetical particle until 2012, when it was found to be real. It changed at that point, and retrospectively became real.

 

[ecco]

For example it was once true that the earth is flat and the sun &c go round it

No. That was never true.

At best it was something that was believed for an infinitesimally small period of time by the sentient inhabitants of a small planet on the outskirts of one of billions of galaxies.

But it was never true.

 

[blü 2]

No. That was never true.

At best it was something that was believed for an infinitesimally small period of time by the sentient inhabitants of a small planet on the outskirts of one of billions of galaxies.

But it was never true.

The difference between you and me may be that you think there are absolute truths and I'm very sure there are none.

There was a time when the earth was flat and the sun went round it ─ ask the best minds of the day, those who'd studied the subject, and they'd have looked at you like it was dumb question ─ use your eyes, sonny, see for yourself! And then later when we knew better, we saw backwards and applied this truth retrospectively.

But that's the best we can ever do. There's any number of things that are true now that won't be true in ten years' time.

 

[columbus]

At best it was something that was believed for an infinitesimally small period of time

Infinitesimally small?
It was the majority of recorded history. It's only been quite recently that a more accurate description of the cosmos became generally available.
Tom

 

[lukethethird]

Why are you an Atheist?
Probably due to a lack of imagination.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why are you an Atheist?
Probably due to a lack of imagination.

Unlike those who create religions perhaps?

 

[Milton Platt]

Because that is god's words. He i the creator and he knows about that. For big bang theory science has discovered later..

That does not answer the question. In the century following the writing of those words, what was it understood to mean? Provide evidence that those reading it in that time period understood what the big bang theory entailed.

 

[Milton Platt]

By that reasoning, if there's a creator, there must be a creator creator. The reasoning is absolutely identical in every possible way.

Don't you know...It's turtles all the way down....