If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[Frannie]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

If you are honest you will admit that billions of lines of DNA that all must be in perfect order did not form themselves in the mud

Maybe the boogie man did it, but who really knows?
We have evidence for DNA evolution.
Animal DNA structures today are likely VERY different from those millions of years ago.
Creation of the first bio cells (billions years ago?) ... we can only speculate.
If you were honest, you would also say “I don’t know how life started on Earth”.
Are you honest?

Sorry kid there is no evidence that DNA formed itself in the mud. Absolutely none, so exactly what does evolution of dna have to do with anything

It is just as likely that your computer operating system could be written by mud

Face it, you don’t know how life originated.
Be honest. Provide the evidence if you think you know anything about it.

But you do, again this is not fact it's a mental problem

 

[Frannie]

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Define consciousness? Is a leaf that turns to the sun conscious

I have no idea. I readily admit that I don't know what consciousness is. But until someone can convince me they do, I don't accept any claim they might make regarding it.

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Ding likes to cherry-pick his material that he somehow thinks supports his religious “God did it” view.

There are Nobel laureates who actially studied CONSCIOUSNESS and believe it is directly associated with biological processes.
Francis Crick and Gerald Edelman are two of them.

Of course, it’s convenient for him to ignore those more-recent acclaimed scientists.

Thoughts are biological, biology can not create itself, all science to prove this has failed

 

[ding]

Thoughts are not tangible. You can’t touch them.

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Yes. But becoming self aware requires the senses of the whole being. I doubt machines will ever become self aware.

The whole being is made up of matter and energy.

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

 

[ding]

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Define consciousness? Is a leaf that turns to the sun conscious

I have no idea. I readily admit that I don't know what consciousness is. But until someone can convince me they do, I don't accept any claim they might make regarding it.

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Ding likes to cherry-pick his material that he somehow thinks supports his religious “God did it” view.

There are Nobel laureates who actially studied CONSCIOUSNESS and believe it is directly associated with biological processes.
Francis Crick and Gerald Edelman are two of them.

Of course, it’s convenient for him to ignore those more-recent acclaimed scientists.

Crick and Wald were contemporaries. I don’t believe Crick was ever a Nobel Laureate.

 

[denmark]

Do you know who else is honest? Baboons are honest. They have an honest evaluation of their perceptions and experiences.

Do you know what is wrong with baboons? They lack the higher level ability to conceptualize things beyond, "banana", "water", "sex".

Just some food for thought to those who have the ability, to be honest with their perceptions and experiences.

Are you saying you are similar to a baboon?
You don’t appear to understand agnosticism.

 

[ding]

Thoughts are not tangible. You can’t touch them.

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Define consciousness? Is a leaf that turns to the sun conscious

I have no idea. I readily admit that I don't know what consciousness is. But until someone can convince me they do, I don't accept any claim they might make regarding it.

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Is that what you believe he said?

 

[diver52]

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Yes. But becoming self aware requires the senses of the whole being. I doubt machines will ever become self aware.

The whole being is made up of matter and energy.

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

 

[diver52]

Thoughts are electrochemical in nature - matter and energy. As far as we are aware, so is consciousness. In fact, you haven't actually said what you mean by consciousness. If a computer becomes self-aware, will it be conscious?

Define consciousness? Is a leaf that turns to the sun conscious

I have no idea. I readily admit that I don't know what consciousness is. But until someone can convince me they do, I don't accept any claim they might make regarding it.

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Is that what you believe he said?

No, that is what he said. Did you actually read it?

"There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness."

 

[Taz]

See? You have nothing.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time. #winning.

Doesn’t even mAke any sense. Total fartsmoke.

Can you tell me specifically what doesn’t make sense and why?

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Like what?

Everything you've ever said here.

 

[ding]

Yes. But becoming self aware requires the senses of the whole being. I doubt machines will ever become self aware.

The whole being is made up of matter and energy.

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

 

[ding]

Define consciousness? Is a leaf that turns to the sun conscious

I have no idea. I readily admit that I don't know what consciousness is. But until someone can convince me they do, I don't accept any claim they might make regarding it.

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Is that what you believe he said?

No, that is what he said. Did you actually read it?

"There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness."

Right. He said he couldn’t tell if lower order creatures had consciousness. He didn’t say he didn’t know what it is. In fact he believes it is a permanent condition involving all of the senses. There isn’t one thing that makes us conscious. It is the whole being.

 

[Frannie]

The whole being is made up of matter and energy.

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

Actually what you are saying is that since you do not know the answer as to what the universe is that it was created by spirits.

That belief if staunch is schizzo in nature

 

[Taz]

The whole being is made up of matter and energy.

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

C'mon brah, give it up. You make no sense and nobody is ever going to say that you do.

And you forgot "and spirit is no thing, so no thing is eternal" or some nonsense like that?

 

[Frannie]

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

C'mon brah, give it up. You make no sense and nobody is ever going to say that you do.

And you forgot "and spirit is no thing, so no thing is eternal" or some nonsense like that?

Telling a schizzo that they make no sense is futile

 

[ding]

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

Actually what you are saying is that since you do not know the answer as to what the universe is that it was created by spirits.

That belief if staunch is schizzo in nature

No. I am saying that we know matter and energy cannot be eternal or the reason for the creation of the universe.

Therefore, it must be something else. Consciousness, which we know exists, fits the bill. Consciousness can be eternal and since the universe is effectively nothing more than information consciousness can be its source.

 

[Frannie]

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

Actually what you are saying is that since you do not know the answer as to what the universe is that it was created by spirits.

That belief if staunch is schizzo in nature

No. I am saying that we know matter and energy cannot be eternal or the reason for the creation of the universe.

Therefore, it must be something else. Consciousness, which we know exists, fits the bill. Consciousness can be eternal and since the universe is effectively nothing more than information consciousness can be its source.

First of all there is no we. Second the scientific law of conservation of mass spells out clearly that matter and energy are eternal and merely change form repetitively. You do not know the answers as to where matter and energy came from initially. No human does, therefore you assign a spirit as your god.

Point in fact, before plate tectonics was understood, volcanic eruptions were caused by angry gods and spirits.

 

[diver52]

The whole being is made up of matter and energy.

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

As I said, you are free to make it up.

 

[diver52]

I have no idea. I readily admit that I don't know what consciousness is. But until someone can convince me they do, I don't accept any claim they might make regarding it.

Here's what George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine and an atheist to boot, has to say about consciousness:

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science."

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.​

So he also says he hasn't a clue what consciousness is.

Is that what you believe he said?

No, that is what he said. Did you actually read it?

"There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness."

Right. He said he couldn’t tell if lower order creatures had consciousness. He didn’t say he didn’t know what it is. In fact he believes it is a permanent condition involving all of the senses. There isn’t one thing that makes us conscious. It is the whole being.

You are reading what you want to see and ignoring the rest. He has clearly stated that he hasn't got a clue what consciousness is. In fact, he seems to be saying that he believes (which is not the same thing as knowing) that you can't know what it is.

 

[ding]

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

Actually what you are saying is that since you do not know the answer as to what the universe is that it was created by spirits.

That belief if staunch is schizzo in nature

No. I am saying that we know matter and energy cannot be eternal or the reason for the creation of the universe.

Therefore, it must be something else. Consciousness, which we know exists, fits the bill. Consciousness can be eternal and since the universe is effectively nothing more than information consciousness can be its source.

First of all there is no we. Second the scientific law of conservation of mass spells out clearly that matter and energy are eternal and merely change form repetitively. You do not know the answers as to where matter and energy came from initially. No human does, therefore you assign a spirit as your god.

Point in fact, before plate tectonics was understood, volcanic eruptions were caused by angry gods and spirits.

Do you know what thermal equilibrium is? Do you understand that as time approaches infinity that all objects will become uniform in temperature? This is simple thermodynamics.

The conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It merely changes form. But for every matter to energy or energy to matter transaction there is a corresponding los of useable energy. This does not mean that energy is destroyed. The total energy remains the same. It's just that the ability to do thermodynamic works is reduced. Energy flows from higher energy objects to lower energy objects. Eventually all objects will equilibrate. That's how we know that what we see or what created what we see cannot be eternal.

 

[ding]

Yes. But the thought isn’t. The thought isn’t bound by the physical laws of nature. The thought can be eternal. The thought is pure information.

You may well believe that, but I see nothing which supports the hypothesis.

You mean other than the solution to the first cause conundrum.

The desire for a solution is not the same thing as a solution. You are free to make one up it you like, but that isn't going to get me to accept it.

Correct. The solution is the solution. And the only solution to what came before that is something which is eternal.

We know matter and energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the solution must be something which is immaterial. Spirit is immaterial.

As I said, you are free to make it up.

I'm not making anything up. Science tells us that our universe was created from nothing. That it had a beginning. The question of what came before that is a valid question. There is not an infinite number of what came before thats. There is one source. A first cause. This first cause must be uncaused. Therefore, it must be eternal. It's simple logic.