experiment

[soaringeagle]

just as an experiment, i would truly like to see if religion, god, creation vs. evolution, good/evil & the nature of the universe & life itself could be discussed without resorting to quotes from varius religiostexts, or pre-prescribed notions based on acceptable religios dogmas

i invite all responces which come from free thinking open minded people to openly discuss these issues relying simply on your own minds..

can religion be discussed without reffrence to so called sacred texts?

[soaringeagle]

so...noone can discuss religion without quoting religios texts?
how many times have you said its impossible to deny the existance of god..but you cant rationalize gods existance without refferencing books written by relatively primative men?if god exists shouldnt our own minds know it & understand it fundamentaly?
shouldnt the truth be somewhat odvios & easy to explain?

come on guys..you have minds..lets have some thoughts here

[Sera Michele]

They could, but you would have taken thier conclusions away from them. All religious theories concerning creation of the universe, or existance of gods are fatally flawed. This is because the answer exists before the evidence. Their book tells them the world was made in 7 days and god exists, etc...and now that they have the conclusion they search for evidence to support it. They work backwards. Unlike science, which finds evidence and draws conclusions from there. Real science is also flexible. The conclusions in science can and do change as more evidence is obtained, whereas the conclusions from religious texts are not so flexible.

That is why throughout history as science progresses many of the myths associated with religion fade. There are many creation stories, all kinds of gods, and traditions that were once belived and are now known for what they were: myths. But the days of religious diversity are ending. Only a small percentage of the religions throughout time are practiced today, and the ones that are exist in the strength they do mainly because they were inseperable from government for such a long time (and are still inseperable in some places).

[nesta]

sure people can, but most people aren't trained to think that way. those of us who have learned to think that way on our own (such as myself) probably can't do it too very well like some of the greater philosophers have.....

but what exactly do you wish to discuss?

[Colours]

you didnt really give any topics of discussion :)

[soaringeagle]

i would truly like to see if religion, god, creation vs. evolution, good/evil & the nature of the universe & life itself can be discussed without refferencing religiods texts..thats the topic of discussion, but ok lets simplify it to wether god exists or not..& what is the nature of god then...based on rational thought

[Colours]

god or reality can be so many things i think its pretty much pointless to discuss what you think it is.

[soaringeagle]

pointless? or impossible without the refferencesto religios texts?
remember this is an experiment..the point is to see if its even possible

[nesta]

it would depend on what you mean by "god." does god to you mean a personal deity or deities with supernatural powers? or does it mean a force or energy that perhaps sets things in motion, determines events, or binds creation together? or is god to you a steady stream of love and harmony? it's a very vague word with many connotations, really.

i think that it would seem to me to be very unlikely that anything would exist at all. obviously to some degree the highly complex world we perceive as being "real," with predictable restrictions and behaviors in which we conduct our daily lives, exists on some level. perhaps we actually have VERY limited understanding of our own existance and the nature of the universe, and perhaps our limitations prevent complete understanding. it's pretty much impossible to tell at this point in time....(and don't get me started on the notion of time itself!)

that said, i would say that logically, our environement seems highly structured and relatively consistent, and that if there is either the possibility of things existing or the possibitiy of nothing existing, complete void, then it would be far more likely for there to be nothing, a void, rather than for there to be existance, because nothing that i know of has ever been shown to simply pop into existence from out of nowhere. next most likely would be a chaotic form of existence, with few restrictions on behavior of matter and little chance of organisms existing in any "advanced" state such as we do. less likely still would be a highly structured, relatively non-chaotic existence in which life forms exist as sentient, thoughtful beings with large, multicellular bodies and linguistic principles. since the least likely of these scenarios is what appears to actually take place, it would raise the likelihood of outside interference (i.e. divine creation or intervention) being the cause of such a state of existence. it would seem to me that given the world we live in, it would seem far more likely that there IS some sort of god (though the nature of this "deity" cannot be known at this point to the living) than that there isn't. however, it cannot be completely certain.

that said, the idea of a god really doesn't clear things up very much, because then you have to go into questions which are even more difficult yet to come up with a conclusive answer to, such as: what is god? what can god do? what is the nature of god? does god have a personality? is there only one god? from what did god arise? and so on. the concept of time becomes increasingly copmlicated and problematic here.

thats the best i can answer, i'm sure someone else can answer better. it's simply my relatively uneducated point of view on the matter.

[nesta]

but i agree that it's pointless to discuss it. sure, it's interesting, but it is merely a trivial philosophical distraction from more pressing matters such as how to get the most out of what we perceive to be life, how to live happily and peacefully, and how to maintain balance with our apparent environment to keep our world as stable and continuous as possible without destroying it. once we can establish a harmonious and generally fulfilling existence, THEN we can point our attention to more complex and unimportant matters...if it turns out to be a wise pursuit to begin with.

[soaringeagle]

well thats certainly a very good & well thought out start to the discussion, & i would like to submit a thought i had recemtly, that what we attribute to god..giving all things in the universe structure..may possibly be simply an inteligence buily into the fabric of all things..the atom..after all atoms have combined to form extremely compleh structures like suns & plannets & living creatures & they did these things because its in theyre nature to combine in certain ways..is there an inteligence outside the atom that allws it to do all thse things? or is the atom designed intelegently by its own nature the concept of god after all is just an explanation for how all thes things happened is it not? so, taking that 1 step further, are not all things living dead, matter enrgy all that exists part of god? or god itself i always likeed the tem "all that is" when reffering to "god" cause the term god is useless since it reffers to a being which logicaly makes far less sence then a cosmic inteligence within all that is

[Colours]

pointless? or impossible without the refferencesto religios texts?
remember this is an experiment..the point is to see if its even possible

pointless period. Reality could be anything. god is just one theory. the universe could be one eye of a giant sorcerer hamster. it would be anything.

[Burbot]

so...noone can discuss religion without quoting religios texts?i love how you give everyone the time to respond...just because no one come on to hip-forums in one hour doesnt mean no one is going to do it...geez :rolleyes:

how many times have you said its impossible to deny the existance of god..but you cant rationalize gods existance without refferencing books written by relatively primative men?
ok fine, im not goign to discuss acctual topics, but i will give a few examples of some some arguments creationists use against evolution...

1. Entropy
2. The seemingly failure to create RNA/DNA and whatnot using conditions [atmosphere and "primordial soup"] that are hypothesised to have existed back in the day
3. They often say that carbon-dating is flawed [i disagree with this]
4. There is some evidence of a large scale flood around the world [however i again disagree that this would be noah's flood, or Gilgamesh's and all of those other guys]
5. I have heard some claims that there have been human and dinosaur fossils found together
6. The old Darwin Death-Bed-Repentance argument
7. ummm, ok...err...i thinkim runnign out but you get the picture...there have been many arguments made, some of which arent entirely flawed...

[soaringeagle]

pointless? or impossible without the refferencesto religios texts?
remember this is an experiment..the point is to see if its even possible

pointless period. Reality could be anything. god is just one theory. the universe could be one eye of a giant sorcerer hamster. it would be anything. lol i agree with you there ;)
so i guess we're back to looking only to science for answers since logicaly mystical beings make very little sence
perhaps i should have put this in cristianity forum or any of the others since i'm primrily interested in seeing if those who choose to beleive in 1 concept of god over another can justify those beleifswithout repeated refferences to these ancient & obsolete texts.. based on si,ple logic..i'd even entertain emotion as a possible justification if it can be proven to have thesource they claim

[Colours]

how is entropy used against evolution?

[MrRee]

just as an experiment, i would truly like to see if religion, god, creation vs. evolution, good/evil & the nature of the universe & life itself could be discussed without resorting to quotes from varius religiostexts, or pre-prescribed notions based on acceptable religios dogmas

i invite all responces which come from free thinking open minded people to openly discuss these issues relying simply on your own minds..

can religion be discussed without reffrence to so called sacred texts?
If one were a photon, blasted from it's atomic connections in a star, speeding through the vastness of space yet seemingly motionless because of the enormity of scale, immersed in darkness yet composed of light, would one feel lost, alone, frightened, or would one simply feel that they were on a journey, knowing where they came from, not knowing where they're going?
Some people judge the dark to be evil, to be avoided. Yet it surrounds all.
Some people judge light to be good (possibly based upon the belief that dark is evil), to be sought after. It fills dark space.
By nominating dark as evil, fear is lived. By nominating light as good, fear is countered.
By accepting the univese as a benign medium through which we live, there is nothing to fear and everything to enjoy.
Such is life.
Take the journey.
Trust.

[Burbot]

how is entropy used against evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Evolution.2C_creation .2C_and_the_second_law

i guess if i had said the second law of thermodynamics, it might have been a bit more clear, but entropy is the main part of the law that is used in the argument

[soaringeagle]

MrRee & burdot ya both get a cookie for accepting my challenge :)

[makno]

your right soaringeagle .....true magesty , as it were , or clean , unfettered magic .....is beyond any words written ......

[soaringeagle]

but i bet you could invent a few descriptive yet unidentifyable words that might explain things once we spend a few days tryin to figure out theyre meaning ;)

[makno]

look if youve ever lived a moment of your life whereu could feel and sense in every way the energythat was superpulsating refracting and piquantly so seemingly focused but paradoxicaly freeform .....youd know it but describe it perhaps differently

[MrRee]

well thats certainly a very good & well thought out start to the discussion, & i would like to submit a thought i had recemtly, that what we attribute to god..giving all things in the universe structure..may possibly be simply an inteligence buily into the fabric of all things..the atom..after all atoms have combined to form extremely compleh structures like suns & plannets & living creatures & they did these things because its in theyre nature to combine in certain ways..is there an inteligence outside the atom that allws it to do all thse things? or is the atom designed intelegently by its own nature the concept of god after all is just an explanation for how all thes things happened is it not? so, taking that 1 step further, are not all things living dead, matter enrgy all that exists part of god? or god itself i always likeed the tem "all that is" when reffering to "god" cause the term god is useless since it reffers to a being which logicaly makes far less sence then a cosmic inteligence within all that isNuclear physicists such as Fritjov Capra (The Tao of Physics) demonstrate that quanta indeed have unique connected intelligent responses. Beginning with the "particle/wave" attributes of photons, which only demonstrate either particularity when being tested for. So when photons are given the option of being particles or waves, they demonstrate both simultaneously, and when being tested for either particle or wave attributes exclusively, they demonstrate one or the other, but not both. Similarly, various quanta accomodate spacial adjustment requirements immediately and not subject to any time-driven cascade as once thought. So immediate in fact that it is believed that quanta communicate at speeds far in excess of the speed of light.
** note that physicists use the term "communicate" when refering to the appearance, disappearance, or presence of qanta within a (unified) field.
I also recently read a similar phycisicts dissertation that strongly supported the 'consciousness' of inert matter claim, but cannot remember the reference.
So my take is that a consciousness pervades entirety. It is what 'primitive' cultures tuned in to in order to acquire nature knowledge, which over time has become the "R" word religion.
Bach flower remedies were discovered by bach asking plants to tell him what they could be used for by meditating next to them and receiving the answers (ask and it shall be given!)
Indians of the Amazon likewise commune with the nature kingdom and receive sacred wisdom knowledge.
All this seems to come together in a living dynamically inter-connected universe that, if connected with and revered, gives its all. It follows that only those who connect can benefit. Those who do not connect must rely upon those who do, can, or will connect, thereby causing "mystery" or "religion".
Hope that makes sense in the context of the thread ~ went off into the world of mind for a sec.

[soaringeagle]

yes that made alot of sence & jives with my own feelings on the subject
it is interesting to note here however that not 1 person has even attempted to explain or rationalize the possibility of a more christian type philosophy, or the philosophies of any of the majotr religions..it just goes to proveat least to my mind that all things can be explained with thought except those things that we are told to just beleive
& without the mumbo jumbo of brainwashing sacred texts, theyre arguments fall to peices

[Burbot]

it is interesting to note here however that not 1 person has even attempted to explain or rationalize the possibility of a more christian type philosophy, or the philosophies of any of the majotr religions
maybe its cause you make claims that if an agnostic or athiest or, well i think it was any non-christain becomes president of the US, that the christains will try to assasinate him... :rolleyes:

[soaringeagle]

maybe its cause you make claims that if an agnostic or athiest or, well i think it was any non-christain becomes president of the US, that the christains will try to assasinate him... :rolleyes: isnt that most likely true?
c'mon..think about it..if they bomb doctors who do abortions, what would they do to a president who legalied gay marriages, or pot, ..or the big 1, made it impossible for candidates to be bought by religios organizations

but thats off topic

[TrippinBTM]

what is the nature of god then...based on rational thought
That's like asking what the nature of circular things are, based on square conceptions.

God, the divine, consciousness, The One, universal force.... this is non-logical in nature, it can't be described (at least not fully) by logic. as the Tao Te Ching says, "the Tao that can be talked about is not the real Tao". It's a symbol of the Tao, but not the Tao itself. Words, logic, thought, this is all symbolic in nature, abstractions, not the thing itself. Since "god" or whatever you want to call it is the Whole, the Universe, the One that has no comparison, it can't be described (because description is based on words/language, which is relative. the Holy is absolute). This means even the holy scriptures (pick your religion, i mean all of them) are not the Truth, but a description of it. You can say the words all you want, but they aren't IT. Worshipping the scriptures is like climbing a signpost, rather than following where it's pointing.

[soaringeagle]

That's like asking what the nature of circular things are, based on square conceptions.

God, the divine, consciousness, The One, universal force.... this is non-logical in nature, it can't be described (at least not fully) by logic. as the Tao Te Ching says, "the Tao that can be talked about is not the real Tao". It's a symbol of the Tao, but not the Tao itself. Words, logic, thought, this is all symbolic in nature, abstractions, not the thing itself. Since "god" or whatever you want to call it is the Whole, the Universe, the One that has no comparison, it can't be described (because description is based on words/language, which is relative. the Holy is absolute). This means even the holy scriptures (pick your religion, i mean all of them) are not the Truth, but a description of it. You can say the words all you want, but they aren't IT. Worshipping the scriptures is like climbing a signpost, rather than following where it's pointing. absolutely
this is what i've said over & over, the devine is by its very nature unknowable & unnamable & those who claim to know the truth are committing the ulimate blasphemy..every religion might have little sparks of truth in them, but ultimately in theyre rigidity they only serve to keep you from real understanding
sure you can spout the words out in your sleep quoting verse after verse..even convince yourself you "feel gods pressence" or claim to witness miracles (i had 1 guy say that & i asked him what miracles, & he described a dozen everyday random occurrances that were basicaly the same as things i "witnessed" yet becaus he beleived in god to him they wre miracles to everyone else they wre everyday life) ok i lost my train of thought here..oh yea..these feelings are imaginry tricks of the mind to justify an increasingly unbeleivable faith in the least probable answer to the ultimate question

sorry if i babbled a bit

[soaringeagle]

but i still would hope 1 of these people who flood the forums with thoudsands of bible quotes would have the courage to at least try

[Zajko]

There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.
- William Shakesphere

The universe is not only queerer than we imagine; it is queerer than we CAN imagine.
- A well-known quantum physicist (somebody help me here!)

As a child I had (and still have) a very logical mind and a fascination and aptitude for mathematics, Most of my early conceptions of God and Ultimate Reality were based on mathematical thinking, and they continue to ring true for me today. You might say I am a Pythagorean. I will attempt to explain some of my thoughts, insights and conclusions:

If we live in an infinite universe, it surely includes God (any God we may choose to worship!)

If we live in a finite universe, there must be a "God"; an ultimate decision-maker who determines what "exists" in this finite universe and what does not. I have personally now concluded that if we do live in a finite universe, it is part of an infinite universe.

The most powerful tool we have discovered for understanding and successfully interacting with the physical universe, even more powerful than common sense, is Mathematics. I believe, with Stephen Hawkings, that when we study Mathematics we glimpse the mind of God.

In mathematics, existence is not an arbitrary property but a formal statement. Mathematics allows for two different definitions of existence: Something exists if it is created by a formal structure - or - something exists if it is consistent with a formal structure. Mathematicians consistently prefer to use the wider definition of existence, assuming that something may exist even if it cannot be created; i.e. A 20-degree angle (the trisection of an equilatoral triangle) cannot be created using the tools of Euclidean Geometry, bur it is generally recognised that such an angle exists - and indeed must exist or else geometry would be discontinuous!

I believe that existence is a formal property and that everything that can be conceived as logically consistent with a greater pattern that includes us has just as much claim to existence as we do. This includes God, angels and archangels, gods and goddesses, fairies and sprites, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny!

The question becomes a pragmatic one - Since we humans came up with the concept of "existence" to begin with, to what extent is it meaningful and helpful for us apply this concept? I would submit that since a great many people find God to be both meaningful and helpful in understanding their own experience, and since God's existence cannot be denied on logical grounds, we must grant God existence!

How one answers the question "Does God exist" depends as much on how one defines existence as on how one defines God.

The second law of thermodynamics (entropy) tells us we can never go back to a simpler time. Closed systems inevitably grow more complex and ineffable over time. This is because every present moment contains the past as a simpler version of itself.

The sum total of reality includes not only the tiny corner of the space-time-continuum we can perceive with these meager bodies, but the endless possibilities of pattern and chaos - imaginable and unimaginable. Just as the geometry of the Triangle is included in that of the Icosahedron, just as the past is contained within the present, there are vast intelligences in higher dimensions that include us - body and soul - which are at once our context and our destiny. Everything we can imagine (and many things we can't) is real at some level, some level in which we ourselves share existence, and our existence on that level is looking back here and laughing at our childishness!

[soaringeagle]

ok,if i understand you correctly, god exists because we can imagine the existance of god, & beleive in that existance, so that would mean all imagined forms of god existy and can be seperate & one in the same at the same time..that too jives with my personal philosophy
so far everyone who has posted here has done a very good job of applying thought & logic & hads been very thought provoking & as far as i can tell being that i'm barely able to count to 20 without taking off my socks (j/k) essentialy right
but i still would love to see just one of the cambels or jesusdied4u or jerry's out there (the bible thumpers) to take a shot at explaing why theyres is the 1 true faith
forgive me if i misunderstoof any of your meaning

[TrippinBTM]

that quote was by john haldane.

Anyways, in my opinion, mathematics is a very precise way of saying something, but it isn't the thing, it's an abstraction. Quantum Physics is supposed to be one of the most accurate theories we have, and is generally seen as being "right", but no one can understand it...so what good does it really do us? We set out to understand the universe, but found that though we could describe it with math, we will never understand it that way. Science will never give us understanding...only knowledge.

I'd rather meditate than study Trig or Calculus, haha. But hey, if it works for you, I guess I can't say anything against it. Different minds understanding in different ways, it's all good :)

[soaringeagle]

in other threads i personaly invited some of the bible quoters to come here & express theyre beleifs, but i think theyre too scared or incapable of explaining theyre beliefs when they cant just through verses & dogma in your face to explain theyre rather narrow mindedveiws i think everyone whos applied thought to the subject hasa much wider perspective to draw on..i still hope some do accept the challenge though..either for pure entertainment value (a good laugh) or to finaly get some pure insight into the subject..just once i would love a reasonable explanation why christianity makes sence..but you all hav given very good explanations of why my concepts make sence so thanks ;)

[TrippinBTM]

Actually, they probably think you're stupid for asking them to not mention the key part of their spiritual life. I'd be put off if someone told me to defend my spirituality, but said I couldn't mention meditation or consciousness. What would be the point for me to come to their thread?

I don't mean to call you stupid, don't take it that way. I agree with you (as should be obvious by now) that God does not live in a book. At least not exclusively...if the universe IS God (as I believe) the book is god...but so is everything else.

[makno]

the fleas on riley the dog are god ....and poor jesus , if there ever was one and he was a nice guy .they have comitted every unnatural sadistic atrocity you could think of in his name . the hatefull sorry small minded bastards .

[Burbot]

but i still would hope 1 of these people who flood the forums with thoudsands of bible quotes would have the courage to at least try
did it ever occur to you that they just aren't online?

or maybe its cause you say that Christains are going to kill you, and carry on and such
hmmm 11 hours without anyone saying that isnt the case..concensus through sillence..so iguess that is right..but is it RIGHT?

if i admit i'm not christian will you kill me?
accept christ or die?
...maybe they just dont want to be a part of it

this is probobly one of the last times i will post in your threads

[soaringeagle]

did it ever occur to you that they just aren't online?

or maybe its cause you say that Christains are going to kill you, and carry on and such

...maybe they just dont want to be a part of it

this is probobly one of the last times i will post in your threadsif you remember correctly that thread wasspecificaly about why according to theyre thoughts sometimes its ok to kill aslng as its in gods name & that has no real relevence here so why bring that up here when u couldsa brought it up there?\
was i being unfair in anything i said?

[soaringeagle]

Actually, they probably think you're stupid for asking them to not mention the key part of their spiritual life. I'd be put off if someone told me to defend my spirituality, but said I couldn't mention meditation or consciousness. What would be the point for me to come to their thread?

I don't mean to call you stupid, don't take it that way. I agree with you (as should be obvious by now) that God does not live in a book. At least not exclusively...if the universe IS God (as I believe) the book is god...but so is everything else.
yes think yur right about everything, except the psart about the stupid factor, i admit i'm not the smartest guy around, but ik dont exactly think theyre scared of my stupidity, i think theyre scared of the prospect of not being able to justifuy themselveslogicaly..& i['m not trying to dspute theexistance of 1 god over anothr, just question the circulat logic used to "prove" hisexistance.. the argument tha the book exist which means god exists cause god caused the book to be wtritten to prove his existance..whichj came first the begining of the universe or 1st page of the bible (chicken or egg)

[nitemarehippygirl]

If one were a photon, blasted from it's atomic connections in a star, speeding through the vastness of space yet seemingly motionless because of the enormity of scale, immersed in darkness yet composed of light, would one feel lost, alone, frightened, or would one simply feel that they were on a journey, knowing where they came from, not knowing where they're going?
Some people judge the dark to be evil, to be avoided. Yet it surrounds all.
Some people judge light to be good (possibly based upon the belief that dark is evil), to be sought after. It fills dark space.
By nominating dark as evil, fear is lived. By nominating light as good, fear is countered.
By accepting the univese as a benign medium through which we live, there is nothing to fear and everything to enjoy.
Such is life.
Take the journey.
Trust.that was beautiful. everybody read it again. it deserves a second round.

[Burbot]

if you remember correctly that thread wasspecificaly about why according to theyre thoughts sometimes its ok to kill aslng as its in gods name & that has no real relevence here so why bring that up here when u couldsa brought it up there?\
was i being unfair in anything i said?
ok, let me use an analogy...

lets say you have a puppy, and each time you call it over, and it comes, you kick it...pretty soon it will not want anythign to do with you...

im not saying that the people you want to discuss things with are avoiding you, or in any way that you are figurativly kicking them...but when you make posts like the one i quoted, it sure as hell makes me want to avoid your threads and posts...

BTW: if you wanted to have serious discussions with people, i would suggest not taunting them for not posting in your thread within a few hours

[soaringeagle]

i hope you dont avoid me i've enjoyed your posts alot, but yes i supose i see your point

i did mean this thread to be a challange to creatively discuss or define god, religion whatever, but free of all the bombardment of qoutes & doctrines that cause so much division, i have a feeling that underlying all beleives there s something entirely odvios & real & definable & through siscussing it without the constrains of predefined criteria & doctrine we may come closer to a real universal truth..

[Burbot]

naw, im not goign to ignore you, well some threads i ignore, but thats cause i dont really care for discussing some things cause i dont have anyhting to contribute

[soaringeagle]

cool, so, what are all your thoughts on the god gene & god clump or whstever it is, i read in some threads today that scientists have discoverd a part of the frontal lobe that seems active in those who beleive in god (wonder if it was tested against varois religions) but shows no activity in athiests & another 1 wsa specific gene that causes you to be more likely to beleive in god
to me this suggests our religuioss fate is sealed before birth

[Burbot]

ive heard of it...never read or watched anything on it though

[soaringeagle]

well theres people arhuing that god must exist because these nerves give us the ability to conceive of the comcept of god
& having this gene makes us want to beleive in god
but, i have to wonder 2 things, 1, do we simply beleive that theresa god becausea small clump of nerves let us imagine there to be one & 2 if the beleife in god ishardwired into our dna arent we then predetermined to beleive or reject the notion of god at conception & if so, (for a momment lets accept the christian version for arguments sake) is it because theresa quota that needs to be filled? the sperm hits the egg & a cosmic clerk checks his records & dcides this one should go to hell & his twin to heaven, just to ballance the books?

i dont thing science or religion will ever really prove the god theory
& thde debate will always go on, but a biological factor does help me understand whoy some are willing to accept the unbeleivable as fact & others can rejct the undeniable (unbeleivable & indeniable just being words thrown around in these arhuments, & not really facts)