Do you believe in God?

[BrodieBoi94]

Ok, so in the gazillions of universes simultaneously spawned by the big bang, most of them collapsed right back on themselves due to unstable characteristics. You're not contemplating your existence in one of those because they weren't stable enough to survive. You're contemplating your existence in a stable universe because stability is required for life to have enough time to develop to contemplate its own existence.

There are gazillions of rocks orbiting stars in our universe - most of them can't harbor life. You're on one that can precisely because it can. Roll the dice enough times (which the universe absolutely did) and you end up with a planet that can harbor life. Life shows up there and then wonders why conditions are so well suited for it... because life doesn't show up where conditions are not well suited for it.

Flip a coin enough times and you'll get heads 10 times in a row. The 10th heads will then sit there and wonder how it is possible that it exists given the improbable odds of a 10th heads being thrown. That's because it didn't see all the coins there were flipped before it arrived.

Ok. Great. But What I am always wondering is what allows ANYTHING to even come into existence, whether it's a life form or not, whether it's a rock in a galaxy that allows for life to exist or not.

Maybe a bit deeper than you all are thinking, whether you know more on the topic than I do or not. Which one of you can provide an explanation for how all that we know began to exist? None of us can, we can only theorize.

I can state my opinion and you all can state yours. The truth is that each of us can come up with the most sensible explanations for many of these topics, but none can answer the question I just posed definitely.

I just believe that everything comes from something, everything comes by way of action and reaction. Something had to put some effort forth to make "things" exist whether those "things" are live or not.

I just have a hard time believing that once there was nothing, and suddenly there was something because science.

Like I mentioned before I don't believe in religion, I just believe in something much more grand, which is the equivalent of what we call a "God". Something that has power obviously beyond our grasp.

 

[mistersafeway]

I just believe that everything comes from something, everything comes by way of action and reaction. Something had to put some effort forth to make "things" exist whether those "things" are live or not.

Apart from your unproven deity that somehow always existed, of course...

 

[BrodieBoi94]

Apart from your unproven deity that somehow always existed, of course...

If you read my first post in here you would see exactly what I believe, are you really that confident that the human is the most powerful being?

And I like how you omit me explaining that it's my.... OPINION. If you don't believe in a higher power, that's your personal choice.

I never claimed that my so called 'deity" was proven. Are you confusing me with a bible toting fool?

I just have humility. For me to believe that the ultimate being is a human, and that our creations, and understanding is where it stops is foolish, whether we've seen something greater than us or not.

 

[mistersafeway]

If you read my first post in here you would see exactly what I believe,

I did read it.

are you really that confident that the human is the most powerful being?

Where did I say that, or anything even close?

And I like how you omit me explaining that it's my.... OPINION. If you don't believe in a higher power, that's your personal choice.

I didn't claim otherwise for either of us.

I never claimed that my so called 'deity" was proven.

Where did I say you did?

Are you confusing me with a bible toting fool?

You said that you're a deist, so I know you aren't bible toting.

I just have humility.

And here is where I'm forced to disagree. More on that shortly.

For me to believe that the ultimate being is a human, and that our creations, and understanding is where it stops is foolish, whether we've seen something greater than us or not.

Who here has claimed otherwise?

Now, to the more.

Now I can be my own worst enemy sometimes, because the question "If everything is created/designed, then who created God? How did God just come into existence?" pops up.

Then in response, this thought comes along, "To understand the grandeur of God is to understand that God has always been, and wasn't created but is the creator."

So, when it comes to humility, you're saying that you have all the answers (and claiming to be better than people who follow a preexisting religion). What's humble about that? You're also making a very basic logical error, in that you're claiming that everything has to have had a beginning, but you're leaving this nice little loophole for some god or another. If everything needs to have had a beginning, a creator, why does a god get a free pass on that? You use logic right up until that point, then say 'I'm done thinking'. Who's humble? People who aren't afraid to say 'I don't know'. People who aren't so embarrassed that they have a lack of knowledge that they'll make up an answer or cling to one somebody else made up earlier, but will instead try to find the truth honestly. All of this while knowing that they'll likely never get an answer.

 

[Imari]

...what I am trying to explain is the fact that all of these things are even ABLE to exist is something we can only theorize about.

No, it's something we can only theorize about.

You're nailing it down with "God did it".

The truth is that each of us can come up with the most sensible explanations for many of these topics, but none can answer the question I just posed definitely.

Maybe not definitely, but there's certainly a heirarchy of answers. For example, LastTuesdayism is generally not considered to be a particularly robust explanation. 10 points if you can figure out why.

I just believe that everything comes from something, everything comes by way of action and reaction.

No you don't. You don't believe that God is included in that.

I just have a hard time believing that once there was nothing, and suddenly there was something because science.

Nobody ever has ever claimed this, ever.

You know what science says about how the universe was created?

It doesn't know.

It can extrapolate backwards but there is a point at which all our known laws (which may not even be correct or applicable in the first place) break down and we can make no predictions or speculation about what might have happened before that. All we know is that something or nothing happened, and then universe. The Big Bang? Started after the universe was created, if it was. It's the model describing the universe from the earliest known moments, not a model of creation.

I told you to educate yourself about this stuff. Clearly you didn't listen. I'll tell you again. If you want to argue for God over the scientific method, you can start by learning exactly what science does and doesn't say about things like the origin and complexity of the universe.

 

[Dotini]

Consciousness exists.

We can't explain consciousness.

Consciousness may be a universal property, in fact consciousness may be what we otherwise call God.

 

[Danoff]

Ok. Great. But What I am always wondering is what allows ANYTHING to even come into existence, whether it's a life form or not, whether it's a rock in a galaxy that allows for life to exist or not.

Nobody really knows. We know that rocks, space, time, physics, chemistry, etc. all exists because of the big bang. It's very difficult to see before the big bang because it created time as we perceive it. What does it mean to see back before time existed? What does it mean for it to even exist before time existed? When you talk about "before" the big bang or what "created" the big bang, you're talking about something outside of time. When did it happen? Always, never. How does the process work? Well... it doesn't exist in time... or at least it doesn't exist in our space-time environment, maybe it existed in a different one, with different physical laws. These are all very fuzzy questions, which you can understand why physics would struggle to explain. We'll get there eventually.

Which one of you can provide an explanation for how all that we know began to exist? None of us can, we can only theorize.

...none can answer the question I just posed definitely.

Ok I'm with you.

I just believe that everything comes from something, everything comes by way of action and reaction. Something had to put some effort forth to make "things" exist whether those "things" are live or not.

Ok I'm not with you. This kinda goes against what you just said. What happened to "nobody knows", now suddenly you know well enough to have a "belief" in this explanation? How does that make any sense to you? And how does it satisfy you to believe that something "put some effort forth to make things".... given that it just shifts the question to where that something came from and introduces yet more questions about how that something does that. Your explanation explains less than the big bang (and lacks actual evidence).

 

[UKMikey]

Consciousness exists.

We can't explain consciousness.

Consciousness may be a universal property, in fact consciousness may be what we otherwise call God.

I don't think anyone is disputing that consciousness has made its existence known to almost every living human. Unlike the Almighty.

 

[Famine]

Consciousness exists.

We can't explain consciousness.

Consciousness may be a universal property, in fact consciousness may be what we otherwise call God.

 

[Dotini]

View attachment 643644

In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of mind.

from wiki,

Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Parmenides, Plato, Averroes, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in ancient philosophies such as Stoicism, Taoism, Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind, but it saw a decline during the middle years of the 20th century with the rise of logical positivism.[1][2] The recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness has revived interest in panpsychism.[1]

 

[Famine]

That's a lovely, and completely unattributed, copy and paste, but I fear you missed several layers of joke.

 

[Danoff]

In philosophy, panpsychism is the view that consciousness, mind or soul (psyche) is a universal and primordial feature of all things. Panpsychists see themselves as minds in a world of mind.

from wiki,

Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Parmenides, Plato, Averroes, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James. Panpsychism can also be seen in ancient philosophies such as Stoicism, Taoism, Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism. During the 19th century, panpsychism was the default theory in philosophy of mind, but it saw a decline during the middle years of the 20th century with the rise of logical positivism.[1][2] The recent interest in the hard problem of consciousness has revived interest in panpsychism.[1]

That's called appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), and is a logical fallacy.

 

[Dotini]

That's a lovely, and completely unattributed, copy and paste, but I fear you missed several layers of joke.

If you would be so good, would you please explain the joke to me, maybe just the first layer or two? Thanks!

 

[Famine]

If you would be so good, would you please explain the joke to me, maybe just the first layer or two? Thanks!

It's from an episode of Futurama. The monks are using a telescope to find God. The bored monks come up with a cop-out answer so they don't have to look any more.

 

[Dotini]

It's from an episode of Futurama. The monks are using a telescope to find God. The bored monks come up with a cop-out answer so they don't have to look any more.

So the telescope is the wrong lens with which to search for either consciousness or God.
http://lensesofperception.com/category/neuroscience/

 

[Danoff]

consciousness may be what we otherwise call God.

That explains why my dreams are so naughty.

I don't think you're claiming that consciousness created the universe.

 

[Famine]

So the telescope is the wrong lens with which to search for either consciousness or God.
http://lensesofperception.com/category/neuroscience/

It wasn't an optical telescope.

 

[Dotini]

It wasn't an optical telescope.

I use the term lens in an allegorical manner, as in "the lens of perception" cited.

 

[Famine]

I use the term lens in an allegorical manner, as in "the lens of perception" cited.

You could probably just do with watching the episode...

 

[huskeR32]

Ok. Great. But What I am always wondering is what allows ANYTHING to even come into existence, whether it's a life form or not, whether it's a rock in a galaxy that allows for life to exist or not.

Welcome to the club.

Maybe a bit deeper than you all are thinking, whether you know more on the topic than I do or not.

Nope, there's been nearly 700 pages of people giving this a lot of thought. Only one particular type of person comes in here professing to have the answer, though.

Which one of you can provide an explanation for how all that we know began to exist? None of us can, we can only theorize.

You're right, none of us can. A lot of us say "I don't know," and are completely okay with that.

On the other hand, theists are often not okay with that, and default to "God did it." An explanation, whether it's correct or not, is more comforting than recognizing a huge void in one's knowledge. I get it.

I can state my opinion and you all can state yours. The truth is that each of us can come up with the most sensible explanations for many of these topics, but none can answer the question I just posed definitely.

Here's where the problem lies, though. Your language here echoes something I hear from a lot of theists. Essentially, "either it's god, or it's not; I say it is, you say it isn't, we're both equally theorizing."

The thing is, it's not equal. God is but one of an uncountable number of possibilities for what came before/caused the Big Bang. When you choose God* as your preferred explanation, it's not 50:50; there's a staggeringly large chance that you've chosen the wrong one.

*or when anybody chooses any one theory

I just believe that everything comes from something, everything comes by way of action and reaction.

I'm with you here. My brain finds it very difficult to imagine that there was ever a point of nothingness.

Something had to put some effort forth to make "things" exist whether those "things" are live or not.

But here's where you lose me. Why must "effort" be a part of the equation? That word implies a conscious entity at work ("effort" is a hard word to define if you get right down to it, but I'm sure most folks' definitions would be something like work + motivation, and motivation is a mental thing), but I don't see that conscious intent is at all necessary to explain the universe or its origin.

I just have a hard time believing that once there was nothing, and suddenly there was something because science.

Nobody says this, though. Or if they do, they didn't get there via science.

"We don't know" != "It came from nothing."

"We don't know" = "We don't know."

 

[Danoff]

My brain finds it very difficult to imagine that there was ever a point of nothingness.

The fun part about this one is that there is a universe with nothing in it right now! By definition, there are an infinite number of universes with nothing in them. There are some theories out there that our universe is the mathematical equivalent of nothing, and that perhaps any mathematical equivalent of nothing exists... including nothing (nothing existing... that's kindof an oxymoron).

We define existence by the presence of something. If a universe has nothing in it, it is equivalent to a universe which does not exist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ok. Great. But What I am always wondering is what allows ANYTHING to even come into existence, whether it's a life form or not, whether it's a rock in a galaxy that allows for life to exist or not.

You need billions on billions of locations mashing trillions of differing measures of compounds/mixtures/elements against one another to be sure that in some place, some where life will be created. We know what life is made of and we know where the stuff comes from. Those numbers can be very very hard to grasp which is why many people give up on the effort.

We're able to observe it because we are it - you can definitely be sure that no rocks around Alpha Centauri are thinking "why don't we have cable?".

As @Danoff said, flip enough coins.

 

[BrodieBoi94]

No, it's something we can only theorize about.

You're nailing it down with "God did it".



Maybe not definitely, but there's certainly a heirarchy of answers. For example, LastTuesdayism is generally not considered to be a particularly robust explanation. 10 points if you can figure out why.



No you don't. You don't believe that God is included in that.



Nobody ever has ever claimed this, ever.

You know what science says about how the universe was created?

It doesn't know.

It can extrapolate backwards but there is a point at which all our known laws (which may not even be correct or applicable in the first place) break down and we can make no predictions or speculation about what might have happened before that. All we know is that something or nothing happened, and then universe. The Big Bang? Started after the universe was created, if it was. It's the model describing the universe from the earliest known moments, not a model of creation.

I told you to educate yourself about this stuff. Clearly you didn't listen. I'll tell you again. If you want to argue for God over the scientific method, you can start by learning exactly what science does and doesn't say about things like the origin and complexity of the universe.

Let me try my best to be clear. I have a hard time expressing my thoughts online sometimes.

I am not, for one, disagreeing with science behind things, I am just saying that I believe something (best word I can use to describe what kind of "thing" is God, or god like. Powerful.) played a role in the creation, establishment, etc. of all that we know. I believe that SOMETHING had to set the physics into play.

I am not accusing anyone of believing that there was nothing at some point. When I say I have a hard time believing that there was nothing at some point, it is simply because I believe that you can't get something from nothing. 0=0. You know? Hence me saying that some kind of "effort" must have been put forth, or action taken place to cause that big bang... and yes I know that it is technically a theory... setting the universe as we know it up.

So when I say i don't believe at some point, nothing became something because science, I am trying to express that science is greatly limited when it comes to this topic, is there a God/creator, etc? I use the word "God" because I can't think of a better word to use to explain my belief that something played a role in allowing all that we know.

I never dropped the hammer and said, that it's God and that's all it could possibly be, I just stated why I thought that there was something greater, grander than us, which COULD have played a main role in creating "our" world, as in all that we know of.... no matter how much info we have available.

Why I asked if any of you really believe that we are the ultimate being? Simply to see if any of you considered the possibility of extraterrestrial life with much greater capacity than us. I surely have! I have considered that perhaps there is an extraterrestrial, or there are extraterrestrials which have abilities that far surpass ours. That is where the humbling comes from. I can take pride in being a human being, what I consider the most powerful scientifically known being, as well as think to myself that there's a good chance something greater exists.

And no I don't consider any religious person lesser, or consider myself/my ideas better than theirs. I, just like many of you have my opinion. I am fine if some disagree, that's what I even posted here for, to get others' POV.

Now I stated in my 1st post that I believe in a "God", also that I sometimes think that if everything came from something, then where did "God" come from. Which is a contradiction. I couldn't believe such and omit God from those boundaries, as stated. Science aside, it's just mind boggling, because a more suitable idea would be simply everything comes from something... yet the thought comes to mind that everything therefore has a starting point.

Stay with me here, trying not to be confusing. So if there is a starting point then this means that there was a time where there was nothing right? Because if that's not the case then "things" or "something" has always been.

No I don't have trouble admitting I don't know something. I can say that I don't KNOW if what I believe is correct.

Nothing I have typed/said, have I grouped into the fact bin. I am literally trying to transfer my thoughts into words.

 

[W3H5]

I just have a hard time believing that once there was nothing, and suddenly there was something because science.

I also have a hard time getting my head around this concept..

 

[Denur]

I am not, for one, disagreeing with science behind things, I am just saying that I believe something (best word I can use to describe what kind of "thing" is God, or god like. Powerful.) played a role in the creation, establishment, etc. of all that we know. I believe that SOMETHING had to set the physics into play.

In a way I agree with you. Here are some thoughts of mine:

A universe created by god gives me more questions then one without a god. Without a god, I only have 'how' questions, like how did our universe come into existence. With a god I also get 'why' questions: Why did he create our universe? Was he lonely, bored, or did he feel creative? Why did he create it only some 14 billion years ago (assuming god has been around for an infinite time)? Why create an expanding universe and not a static one, with us at the center? Why are we such fragile creatures, needing glasses and having such short lives? Why does he, all knowing and all powerful, create us and destroy us in Great Floods? Why not create a perfect world from the start?

Also: Is god alone or part of a society of gods (like Star Trek's Q-Continuum)? Is he part of the universe or does he 'live' beyond it? What is he made of: an infinite amount of pure energy? Something else? Is he conscience? If so, does he have emotions? I keep referring to god as 'he', because it makes writing this down easier, not because I expect god to have a penis.

About the 'how'. How did god create the universe? Did he create it from nothing or did he sacrifice part of himself, part of his own energy? The former doesn't make any sense to me, so it must be the latter. Which would mean that god became a lesser god. At what point does a lesser god cease to be a god? I don't know.

What makes more sense to me, is a multi-verse with an infinite amount of energy, that has always been. It's like god, but then without the conscience part. I see a world where universes keep popping in and out of existence all the time, even within universes, triggered by who knows what (colliding universes, massive black holes, ...), see image below. Will we ever find evidence for the multi-verse? I don't think so, unless we have been lucky enough to run into a universe with a greater expansion rate than our own. A run-in that obviously doesn't destroy Earth.

 

[TheCracker]

I am not, for one, disagreeing with science behind things, I am just saying that I believe something (best word I can use to describe what kind of "thing" is God, or god like. Powerful.) played a role in the creation, establishment, etc. of all that we know. I believe that SOMETHING had to set the physics into play.

...

So when I say i don't believe at some point, nothing became something because science, I am trying to express that science is greatly limited when it comes to this topic, is there a God/creator, etc? I use the word "God" because I can't think of a better word to use to explain my belief that something played a role in allowing all that we know.

I never dropped the hammer and said, that it's God and that's all it could possibly be, I just stated why I thought that there was something greater, grander than us, which COULD have played a main role in creating "our" world, as in all that we know of.... no matter how much info we have available.

This is the crux to why humans invented gods in the first place. To explain the unexplainable. If something is incomprehensible, then surely there's a higher level of perception somewhere that understands it or even created it?

 

[Imari]

I believe that SOMETHING had to set the physics into play.

Yes, and we've established that your reasoning for doing so is faulty.

So when I say i don't believe at some point, nothing became something because science, I am trying to express that science is greatly limited when it comes to this topic, is there a God/creator, etc?

Not really. It's still the best tool that humans have found for learning about anything. Which includes God and or any creators that may or may not exist.

Have you any suggestions for preferable ways to learn about these things?

I never dropped the hammer and said, that it's God and that's all it could possibly be, I just stated why I thought that there was something greater, grander than us, which COULD have played a main role in creating "our" world, as in all that we know of.... no matter how much info we have available.

Let's not beat around the bush. You believe that there is a god, a creator. You've explained why, and it's entirely contradictory. You keep trying to defend the idea, but you keep running up against the contradictory idea that you are taking "something cannot come from nothing" and "everything is created" as axioms yet excluding god from those because it's hard to explain.

You want to test your thinking, you're testing it. You've been shown the flaws. Try re-examining your thinking with a view to coming up with a logically consistent viewpoint.

Now I stated in my 1st post that I believe in a "God", also that I sometimes think that if everything came from something, then where did "God" come from. Which is a contradiction. I couldn't believe such and omit God from those boundaries, as stated.

Yet you do. Why is that?

So if there is a starting point then this means that there was a time where there was nothing right? Because if that's not the case then "things" or "something" has always been.

What if there was no time? There's no such thing as "starting" if there's no time. Or if causality doesn't work.

Our assumptions about the universe break down prior to the big bang. That doesn't mean that there isn't anything, simply that the "rules" of our universe may no longer apply. That could be all of them or some of them. Which means that you can't simply extrapolate back with normal universe rules of thumb. Maybe the big bang isn't a start, it's just a curtain we can't see beyond. Maybe it's the moment that our universe transformed from another universe where there wasn't space and time, but instead there was yength, vidth, grapth and spime.

Just because we can't see doesn't make it rational to start making assumptions based on what you want to be true.

It seems to me that you think what you do because you find it difficult to think in other ways.

No I don't have trouble admitting I don't know something. I can say that I don't KNOW if what I believe is correct.

Interesting though that you prefer to go for the God explanation instead of saying "I don't know what's going on, I'm waiting for more information".

 

[Danoff]

Stay with me here, trying not to be confusing. So if there is a starting point then this means that there was a time where there was nothing right? Because if that's not the case then "things" or "something" has always been.

If you really think about it... the only answer that makes any sense at all is that our universe is part of what happens when there is nothing. The only answer that is satisfactory is that our universe is the equivalent of no universe. Anything else will always leave questions. If something "created" the universe... you just shift the questions. If the universe created itself... you just shift the question again. There's only one answer (that I know of) that doesn't shift questions.

Suppose nothing exists (contradictory I know... and true at the same time)
Now suppose you have two equal particles. A pro-particle and an anti-particle. They float away from each other for a while and come back together and cancel each other out to make nothing (if you want to read more, look up Hawking Radiation). What's the difference between the particles and nothing? Mathematically they're equivalent (not really because I had to create space and time to make that happen, but I can also create anti-space and anti-time where one particle travels backward in time and space to mirror the particle traveling forward in time and space).

Suppose you have 4 particles... 2 pro-particles and 2 anti-particles. They float away from each other for a while and come back together and cancel each other out to make nothing. What's the difference?

Why would you arbitrarily pick any versions of those "nothing" scenarios. Suppose for a moment that every equivalent of nothing exists.

 

[Dotini]

You could probably just do with watching the episode...

View attachment 643660​

I've never watched Futurama. But I finally dug up Godfellas, S4 E8, and learned that "When you do things right, people won't know you've done anything at all."

 

[BrodieBoi94]

Yes, and we've established that your reasoning for doing so is faulty.



Not really. It's still the best tool that humans have found for learning about anything. Which includes God and or any creators that may or may not exist.

Have you any suggestions for preferable ways to learn about these things?



Let's not beat around the bush. You believe that there is a god, a creator. You've explained why, and it's entirely contradictory. You keep trying to defend the idea, but you keep running up against the contradictory idea that you are taking "something cannot come from nothing" and "everything is created" as axioms yet excluding god from those because it's hard to explain.

You want to test your thinking, you're testing it. You've been shown the flaws. Try re-examining your thinking with a view to coming up with a logically consistent viewpoint.



Yet you do. Why is that?



What if there was no time? There's no such thing as "starting" if there's no time. Or if causality doesn't work.

Our assumptions about the universe break down prior to the big bang. That doesn't mean that there isn't anything, simply that the "rules" of our universe may no longer apply. That could be all of them or some of them. Which means that you can't simply extrapolate back with normal universe rules of thumb. Maybe the big bang isn't a start, it's just a curtain we can't see beyond. Maybe it's the moment that our universe transformed from another universe where there wasn't space and time, but instead there was yength, vidth, grapth and spime.

Just because we can't see doesn't make it rational to start making assumptions based on what you want to be true.

It seems to me that you think what you do because you find it difficult to think in other ways.



Interesting though that you prefer to go for the God explanation instead of saying "I don't know what's going on, I'm waiting for more information".

I suppose the reason why most likely has to do with how I was raised, and who I was raised around. Being taught about a higher power in my younger ages just leaves an imprint.

But I should add that I have refuted all that the world has tried to make me accept about this religion or that... this holy text or that... etc, so in a way I am on the same side as you, because throughout my life I am always looking for evidence of what I believe is possible... a powerful being.

My issue is like this... do you ever see/experience something or think of something and just know it's going to be great, and once you get ahold of it you find out you were right? See certain things are just like that for me, some things I leave to my "gut feeling", if that makes sense.

Of course I see the issue in this. No evidence, or research to support it. But I wonder if any of you can relate to this?

So after reading everyone's reply and rationing, I can say this... I don't know if there is a "creator" for sure. I don't have any evidence of such, but if you ask me if I believe that there could possibly be one, then I will say yes.

Probably for the same reason I believe there could be ET's. And that's aside from my upbringing.