Christian fundamentalists in Britain

[Jenova's Witness]

.

[DLPB_]

I thought it went something like...for every question science answers, it generates a hundred more.  The number is arbitrary, but does anyone honestly think that we can just answer all the questions in the universe?  Where does this ability to achieve anything and everything stem from?  If when you say science, you mean something that exists, that we have just not discovered/understood yet, then yes, science can certainly explain everything.  But if you mean what humans are capable of understanding, there must be limitations.  Understanding aside, how can you be sure there is a means of percieving everything that we don't know we don't know?  Surely there are things that we don't know because we simply don't have metaphysical access to them.

Exactly.  That is exactly it.  As humans we are restricted by our own laws and our own brains and universe from ever understanding everything.  I think the real reason people don't like this idea is because they have let human ego get in the way and don't like the idea that we will never be able to master science.  Science masters us.  Everybody on this forum is going to die without knowing everything, and so will the 3 trillion to follow us.  That sucks for the people who think otherwise

said exactly the same thing about explaining where life came from

We still do not understand how life is able to form. We know how it grows and evolves but not how it is able to form in the first place just via random chemical reactions.  Sentience, emotion and mind are being debated now as much as ever.  Just knowing how life ends up at a point does not explain it I am afraid.

[Opine]

can we ship these idiots off to America like we did in the olden days?

Please no. We have more than enough.

Actually M-Thoery offers a logical explanation for the cause of the big bang.

It offers a complete theory, 1 of many and is totally and utterly unprovable. 

MICHAEL DUFF: Where M stands for magic, mystery or membrane.

PAUL STEINHARDT: I think people get the wrong impression about scientists in that they think in an orderly, rigid way from step 1 to step 2 to step 3. What really happens that often you make some imaginative leap which at the time may seem nonsensical. When you capture the field at those stages it looks like poetry in which you are imagining without yet proving. [...] One of us, maybe it was me, began by saying oh well why can't we make a universe out of collision and Neil sort of pitching in and saying well, if you did that then you could create all the matter and radiation of the Universe, so we had this conversation, one of us completing the sentences of the other in which we kind of just, just let our imaginations go.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

I agree with your point DLPB that nothing can truly be proven. However, I don't know how logical M theory feels to me. But I'll confess it was thought up by much smarter people. Even if they were simply free associating on the way to a play (I suspect during happy hour).

WITCH!

I don't blame religion for the witch hunts. My guess is that it was more politically motivated and veiled by religion. IMO it's akin to calling someone a Communist during the cold war, or a terrorist now. Have the authorities label someone a terrorist now and it gives them carte blanche.

The general consensus is that the universe if finite in size.

This isn't because there is any kind of wall; it's just because there is a finite amount of matter and it has been travelling for a finite amount of time, namely, since the Big Bang.

Actualy this is something that's currently debated amongst physicists.
Some believe that it is finite, and is expanding as our "universe" expands from the big bang. While others believe that our big bang was not a singularity, and the universe already is at an infinite state.

I'll see if I can find a clip from the debate I just watched about this between Brian Green and Amir Aczel.


Here is the discussion I watched. They start arguing about space around 10:10

[Kudistos Megistos]

As humans we are restricted by our own laws and our own brains and universe from ever understanding everything.

We're restricted by the limited knowledge that exists in whatever era we happen to be living in.

Fortunately, our knowledge increases over time, and thus the number of things we're able to understand. This has always been the case and there is no reason to believe that it has suddenly stopped being the case within the last few decades.

I think the real reason people don't like this idea is because they have let human ego get in the way

Two can play at that game.

I think the real reason people do like that idea is because they have let human ego get in the way. youseewhatididthere.jpg? It is profoundly arrogant to think that we have come anywhere near the limits of what we can know, especially in light of the fact that people have said this in every age, but have been wrong every time. This assumption that we have reached the limits of what the human brain is one of those beliefs like the one that whatever the new fad amongst young people is is something that will destroy society. Adults in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s were wrong about rock music or fashion or video games or the internet destroying society. Adults who were children in one of those decades recognise the stupidity of their own parents but make the same mistake, saying that the current fad really will bring down society. They assume that their situation is special, and you make the same mistake when you assume that we won't continue to develop concepts that were previously inconceivable and that answer questions deemed unanswerable.

Those with big egos don't want to admit that our science will one day be looked upon the same way we see Aristotelian science: an historical curiosity that is clever but still primitive.

Those with big egos don't want to admit that others will one day be able to think in ways that they can't image, and so cling to the belief that if we can't understand something now, no-one will ever understand it. If one has to admit to being ignorant, it's much more pleasant to believe that everyone else is ignorant too.

We still do not understand how life is able to form. We know how it grows and evolves but not how it is able to form in the first place just via random chemical reactions.

We have some pretty good models. The only problem is that we have too many ways of accounting for how life came about.

-------------------------

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they think we have come to some kind of end of intellectual advancement, why we won't continue to expand our conceptual framework and solve problems once deemed unsolvable, just as we always have done. Why do people think that we've reached the limit?

This is particularly interesting since things like human mental enhancement, human genetic engineering and the technological singularity are likely to happen before the century is over, leading to far more rapid scientific advancement than we ever thought possible as we overcome the problem of low human intelligence.

[xLostWingx]

Does an amoeba have limitations?  Does an ant have limitations?  Does an orangutan have limitations?

Are we somehow removed from other lifeforms?  "Humans don't count."  Or is that how evolution goes...

Single Celled Organism=>Fish=>Frog=>Lizard=>Bird=>Monkey=>Omniscient Super Being capable of all things.  At least this is what it seems like you're saying to me.

Why did past civilizations come to an end?  Surely they thought they were advanced beyond the anything that came before them - because they were.  I agree, we are advanced to an astounding degree...but so what?  A dog can be the smartest and most talented dog in the universe, but even then, it won't be smarter than most humans.

I don't mean that we will approach a time where we say, "Oh it looks like there is nothing left to know anymore." or "I have reached my limit, I simply can't understand anything beyond what I already know."  I'm saying that technology or not, we can't know what we can't know. 

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they think we have come to some kind of end of intellectual advancement, why we won't continue to expand our conceptual framework and solve problems once deemed unsolvable, just as we always have done. Why do people think that we've reached the limit?

I think that humans will suffer from a catastrophic demise before technological advancement will halt.  I think we will continue to advance until we no longer exist, unless we go backwards at some point, which isn't totally unlikely.  We can certainly solve problems once deemed unsolvable, no arguement there...but why do you think that we can be aware of all problems?  I definetely don't think we have reached a limit already.  I don't mean limitations to technological progress, I mean limitations to human capabilities.

[Bosola]

We're restricted by the limited knowledge that exists in whatever era we happen to be living in.

On the contrary. There are a small number of things that cannot be scoped by empirical testing within a reasonable timespan, therefore I must be right in my vague, non-committal spiritualism that suggests some absentee father figure is an excellent substitute for closely watching physical causality.

Wishy washy spiritualism: it just werks.

Just because we've 'only' discovered more than any previous generation could ever think of, and not everything, does not mean any old hokum can fill the gaps.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Does an amoeba have limitations?  Does an ant have limitations?  Does an orangutan have limitations?

Are we somehow removed from other lifeforms?  "Humans don't count."  Or is that how evolution goes...

Single Celled Organism=>Fish=>Frog=>Lizard=>Bird=>Monkey=>Omniscient Super Being capable of all things.  At least this is what it seems like you're saying to me.

If that's what it seems like I'm saying, you my wish to stop thinking in terms of false dichotomies.

They have limitations because they don't have complex language and can't understand formal logic. We do and we can. Even if we don't ever have the benefit of any kind of enhancement (which is unlikely), I don't see any theoretical limit to what humans can understand, given enough time to study. δος μοι που στω και κινω την γην. With a vocabulary of just a few tens of thousands of words, we can express an infinite number of ideas, and with the meagre tools at our disposal, we can do a lot more than you can think.

Why did past civilizations come to an end?  Surely they thought they were advanced beyond the anything that came before them - because they were.

The great civilisations didn't come to an end; they merely evolved into something new and passed their knowledge onto subsequent generations.

I don't mean that we will approach a time where we say, "Oh it looks like there is nothing left to know anymore." or "I have reached my limit, I simply can't understand anything beyond what I already know."

Really? Because it seems like that's exactly what you and Seifer have been saying.

Not that we will acknowledge that we've reached a limit, but that we have a limit. I'm also getting the impression that you two believe we have either reached that limit or are very close to it.

I'm saying that technology or not, we can't know what we can't know.

And what can't we know? What makes you think you're able to say what we aren't able to know? You're confusing what we don't know with what we can't, and what we can't know now with what we can't know ever. Those are very big mistakes.

I think that humans will suffer from a catastrophic demise before technological advancement will halt.

That's trivially true, but it might not happen for billions of years. By then, we will have evolved into something completely unrecognisable as human, and likely to be as superior to us in intellect as we are to sheep. Such beings will probably teach their children how the universe was created in nursery school.

I definetely don't think we have reached a limit already.  I don't mean limitations to technological progress, I mean limitations to human capabilities.

Then what makes you think we can have any idea about what kind of questions are unanswerable?

All it takes is one new theory, one new way of thinking, and these unsolvable problems might become child's play.

[xLostWingx]

False Dichtomies?  Those are the terms that I thought you were thinking in…that somehow humans are different.  These animals can’t understand human language, or human logic, but a Crow has Crow logic and Crow “language” that other crows can understand and react to.  Enhancement as applied to mental capacities is exactly that – enhancement…it doesn’t change forms.  Limited understanding can be enhanced to less limited understanding – it can’t be transformed into Absolute Understanding; just as Crow logic and language can’t be transformed into human logic and language.  These things might be translated but translations are not the same thing as original forms.

Sure, humans can understand an infinite number of things, just as any other being can learn or communicate an infinite number of things – but this knowledge does not transcend human thought.  Future beings of a higher intellect, will understand things in that being’s form of understanding – at some point it ceases to be “human understanding.”  But I don’t think this was one of your main points.

I don’t think we have any idea about what kinds of questions are unanswerable.  That’s my point; we don’t have any idea about that which we do not have any idea about.  One new theory, that leads to one new way of thinking, that leads to unsolvable problems being solved is nice…but we would have to have all theories that lead to all ways of thinking, that leads to all problems being solved.  Since we (you) have established that there are infinite thoughts/ideas, and all theories would be an infinite number of theories, how can a finite being do anything infinite?  A finite number of finite beings for a finite amount of time cannot accomplish anything that is infinite.

What exactly is it that you were trying to say again?  Sometimes after all this discussion, the initial ideas become vague and blurred. 

[Kudistos Megistos]

False Dichtomies?  Those are the terms that I thought you were thinking in…that somehow humans are different.  These animals can’t understand human language, or human logic, but a Crow has Crow logic and Crow “language” that other crows can understand and react to.

There's a qualitative difference between the kind of language humans have and the communications that animals use. Simple languages can only express a limited number of ideas, whereas complex ones can express anything. There are arguments, and I'm inclined to find them convincing, that the main reason for human superiority and the the victory of homo sapiens over neanderthals is software rather than hardware; i.e. it's our language that enabled us to become so successful and it was language that gave us the edge over our bigger brained cousins.

Enhancement as applied to mental capacities is exactly that – enhancement…it doesn’t change forms.  Limited understanding can be enhanced to less limited understanding – it can’t be transformed into Absolute Understanding

You're making a very contentious statement as if it were something certain.

I don’t think we have any idea about what kinds of questions are unanswerable.

Really? Because the argument here is about a very specific claim about something that is deemed "unknowable".

Since we (you) have established that there are infinite thoughts/ideas, and all theories would be an infinite number of theories, how can a finite being do anything infinite?  A finite number of finite beings for a finite amount of time cannot accomplish anything that is infinite.

That doesn't matter, since the debate we're having is about something that only requires knowing a finite number of things.

What exactly is it that you were trying to say again?  Sometimes after all this discussion, the initial ideas become vague and blurred.

Wouldn't it be great if we could see the things that were posted earlier in the conversation and, by identifying where and how the argument started, work out what the initial ideas were?

Sigh. A girl can dream...

[xLostWingx]

Complex ideas can express anything?  Complex ideas can express thing to a finer degree, not a perfect degree.  Saying many complex things about a topic can help to clarify what it is that is being talked about, but nothing can be expressed perfectly.  If I say, "I feel happy" then you know what I am talking about because you have an idea of what happy is; I could write a 10,000 word essay describing exactly how I feel, but a feeling is a feeling, it can only be expressed imperfectly through words and thoughts.

Take any contentious statements I make as they are.  I was under the impression that everything being discussed here was contentious.

Concerning the arguement as to whether something can be deemed "unknowable", I've already covered my thoughts on that issue in previous posts.

The arguement here is only concerning knowing a finite number of things if you believe that there are a finite number of things to know.  That is not what I believe.

Yes, I can look back through and attempt to decipher exactly what it is that you are trying to say, and as far as I can tell, that is what we've been discussing - I just wanted to know if you thought anything should be clarified or restated, no need to pretend I'm stupid.

[yarLson]

yes I agree that the universe is finite, no question there. When I state my belief that existence is infinite I was referring to the multiverse or ocean of parallel universes that m theory presents. Since the theory suggests that big bangs are occurring at all times, there would literally be no end to it. Of course it's a young and flawed theory but I believe there is more there tham people are ready to accept. Infinite existence is a pretty huge blow to human ego and ivory towers everywhere. If I used the word universe in an earlier post to describe my belief then I apologize for speaking incorrectly.

[DLPB_]

Personally I think a lot of the theories used to explain existence are every bit as ridiculous as "man in the sky"


Sounds like some scientists are as desperate as religionists.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Personally I think a lot of the theories used to explain existence are every bit as ridiculous as "man in the sky"


Sounds like some scientists are as desperate as religionists.

[DLPB_]

Atheists are far more critically minded and superior in thought to a religionist.  Atheism is nowhere near as bad as religionist, although it can be every bit as bigoted.

A proper position to hold is either weak atheism or agnostic.  I think to be so closed minded to other possibilities than pure science is just as silly as not being open to science.

The world is not that simple and it is bigger than religion and bigger than science.  If anyone thinks the universe is that simple, that it can be understood by our small brains, good luck with that delusion.  As I said before kud, you are looking for disappointment and you are like 10 pin bowling... and you will be the one being hit with a strike.

I am afraid that as much as you like to believe we can understand everything, we can't and no matter what science says or does, it is never going to prove or satisfactorily answer the greatest question in history "How and why is our universe here and how and why are we here."

It can answer all the questions in the universe but it won't answer from where the laws came.  Crack pot theories of multi dimensions are just as baseless and fantastic as some form of creative force.  There is no proof and there never will be.

[Kudistos Megistos]

stuff

No, my point was that you're committing the same error as the man in that comic. When you say "scientists and religionfags are as bad as each other", you falsely present yourself as a rational middle ground.

I am afraid that as much as you like to believe we can understand everything, we can't and no matter what science says or does, it is never going to prove or satisfactorily answer the greatest question in history "How and why is our universe here and how and why are we here."

It can answer all the questions in the universe but it won't answer from where the laws came.  Crack pot theories of multi dimensions are just as baseless and fantastic as some form of creative force.  There is no proof and there never will be.

You say that with a religious fervour. As if it's some article of faith and there is no room for doubt.

[DLPB_]

you falsely present yourself as a rational middle ground.

I don't think in this instance that taking a neutral stance is inferior.  If anything, it is the only correct choice because we lack so much information and always will.

If you saw an edge of a rocky surface and couldn't see over it, you could assume there was a huge drop but there might not be (in fact it might not even be a rocky surface, that could be illusion).  Your position seems to be one of thinking that 1 position is the be all and end all and that you know.

I'd say your position of thinking you know it all or will do, is 100X worse, and a silly comic isn't clever...

[Kudistos Megistos]

you falsely present yourself as a rational middle ground.

I don't think in this instance that taking a neutral stance is inferior.  If anything, it is the only correct choice because we lack so much information and always will.

The sun might rise tomorrow. It might not. We can't be absolutely certain. Not 100%. So I'm adopting an agnostic stance as to whether the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't think in this instance that taking a neutral stance is inferior. If anything, it is the only correct choice because we lack so much information and always will. seewhatididthere?

If you saw an edge of a rocky surface and couldn't see over it, you could assume there was a huge drop but there might not be (in fact it might not even be a rocky surface, that could be illusion).  Your position seems to be one of thinking that 1 position is the be all and end all and that you know.

If I had seen many edges rocky surfaces before and had noticed that every single other one had a huge drop on the other side, I'd be justified in believing that this one had a drop on the other side too. Naturally, I couldn't assert anything with certainty, but I could make a pretty safe guess. I'd certainly take issue with anyone who said there definitely wasn't a drop on the other side.

You're making the typical agnostic mistake of assuming that if conclusive evidence doesn't exist, then no evidence exists and both positions are equal. That's a bad mistake to make.

And somehow, you're also managing to make the bold assertion that we definitely will never know the cause of the big bang and refusing to give any quarter to the suggestion that we will. The one assuming that one position is the be-all and end-all is you.

I'd say your position of thinking you know it all or will do, is 100X worse, and a silly comic isn't clever...

No. You're the person who's refusing to admit that you don't know everything that it's possible to know. I have a big ego, but I'm man enough to admit that people in the future will be able to understand things that are beyond my comprehension. I will be an uneducated moron by the standards of people in 1000 years time, provided that fucktards like the people in the videos I posted, or their counterparts in other religions, don't get their way.

By denying that we can know much more than we already know, you're comforting yourself with a "crab in a barrel" mentality. I think you derive comfort from the belief that, if you can't understand the mysteries of the universe, no-one ever will. That way, you can convince yourself that no-one can be smarter than you.

[DLPB_]

My position is one of not knowing.  You can wrap that up however you like.  Your position is thinking your position is cleverer.  Who is more smug in thinking they know it all?  You seem to be attacking me for not taking either position, and then accusing me of thinking I know everything.  The 2 don't go together and attacking someone for being neutral comes across as foolish in this debate.  I of course consider some things more likely than others, but I certainly don't have the evidence to start choosing either position.

You have chosen a position based on a gross absence of evidence.

 

[Bosola]

Come on. Let's stick to attacking our opponent's opinions and mistakes rather than attacking our opponents themselves. We're all friends here, after all.

[Kudistos Megistos]

My position is one of not knowing.  You can wrap that up however you like.  Your position is thinking your position is cleverer.  Who is more smug in thinking they know it all?

There's one person here who seems to want to claim that he knows everything humans will ever know. I'm the one saying that humans in the future will know far more than me. How you came to the conclusion that I'm claiming to know everything is beyond me.

You seem to be attacking me for not taking either position, and then accusing me of thinking I know everything.  The 2 don't go together

Yes they do, when the person is doing both things at the same time. Militant agnostics are at the same time fence-sitters and faith heads, because they assert the superiority of their fence-sitting to the point of dogma

and attacking someone for being neutral comes across as foolish in this debate.

You're not taking a neutral position. You're taking a very extreme position; namely that there are certain things that are necessarily unknowable. The statement "humans will never know x" is as far from neutral as we can get. It implies that you know something with absolute certainty.

Can you explain to me why "we can't know" is any less of a knowledge claim than any other statement? A lot of people seem to imply that statements like these are not knowledge claims, when it is obvious that they are. They are claims to knowledge of what can be known. What makes these types of assertions epistemically unique?

I of course consider some things more likely than others, but I certainly don't have the evidence to start choosing either position.

If you have enough evidence to consider some things more likely than others, you have enough evidence to choose a position. In fact, you have chosen a position, and without any evidence at all.

You have chosen a position based on a gross absence of evidence.

No, it's the other way around. My position that humans will continue to discover things that previous generations possible is based on the fact that they've been doing this for thousands of years, and they are now starting to develop tools to speed up this process in ways never thought imaginable.

Your belief that what is unanswerable now will never be answerable is based on blind faith.

It is as if we were arguing about whether the sun will rise tomorrow. The sun has risen every other day, so I'd say that it will probably rise tomorrow. Your position seems to be an assertion that it will never rise again, that we have had the last sunrise ever. Neither of us can conclusively prove our position, but one is more likely than the other.

We're all friends here, after all.

[DLPB_]

It is pointless conversing with you.  You manage to twist and spin everything people say into what you want them to say.  You have definitions for words, you tell dictionaries what they mean, you redefine the word "good" and you spin like a politician.  A bad one.  We have had this conversation haven't we... and it has come to an end.  I have said what I feel, and if you don't like it, I couldn't care less. 


Good day 

[Kudistos Megistos]

It is pointless conversing with you.

And yet you insist on doing it.

You manage to twist and spin everything people say into what you want them to say.

No, I don't need to do that. The people I argue with are fully capable of saying silly things without my help.

You have definitions for words

OH NOES!

you tell dictionaries what they mean

No, I tell you what words in the dictionary mean. Words like "dated".

you redefine the word "good" and you spin like a politician

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

A bad one.

That's a personal attack!

We have had this conversation haven't we

No, this is definitely the first time we've had this conversation

and it has come to an end.

So you insist on having the last word.

I have said what I feel, and if you don't like it, I couldn't care less.

If you couldn't care less, why are you posting this?

-----------------------------------------------------

EDIT

>MFW TEXAS

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas.

[yoshi314]

Seeing as this topic was originally about religion...

I'm religious myself, and I believe that there's nothing wrong with religion on its own.  However, what people need to understand about religion is that it is strictly a belief, and must not be treated as anything more.  You can believe whatever you like, and you can let it affect your life however you like, but it's never acceptable to cause trouble to other people because what you believe has nothing to do with them.

Even if you're a raging fundamentalist who believes that your religion is correct and everyone else's is wrong and everyone else should die and burn in hell for it, that has nothing to do with them because that's just what you believe.  The only person that has anything to do with is you.

not one to nitpick, but you just proposed to send people you consider unworthy or otherwise unfit to hell. does that mean you're trying to make people believe in hell, and enforce your beliefs on others?

that aside, the longer i live the more i believe religion is just another way of exercising control over people. we would be good enough with just a moral code of conduct, and no gods.

[m35]

Watching that this thread at least started out quite calm and respectful, I was interested in posing a bit of rhetoric to improve my understanding. I'm sure these ideas are not new by any means, so I'm curious what some of the standard counter-points are.

1) From my limited understand, the scientific approach relies on repeatable, observable experiments. There are many things we can't observe directly, so the best we can do is observe the things around them (e.g. fundamental elements of matter, or black holes). Where is the flaw in trying to draw a parallel between this and a "higher power"? 

2) Now to side-step the actual question of if religion is real. It has been accepted by many people that homosexuality is not a choice--it's just the way some people are. It's natural and, so long as it's not hurting anyone, there's nothing wrong with it. Of course this sort of "live and let live" idea can extend to most any inclination people have. What could be said, then, to someone who tried to draw a parallel to that and religious belief? It has been reported by psychological studies that we are hard-wired to have religious belief (e.g. applying meaning to random events). So, if following the natural tendency to believe in religion doesn't hurt anyone, is it any different from following a tendency to be (fill in the blank)?

Like I said, I'm sure these points have been raised countless times by others before me. But I hope some thoughtful feedback can help me grow in understanding.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Watching that this thread at least started out quite calm and respectful, I was interested in posing a bit of rhetoric to improve my understanding. I'm sure these ideas are not new by any means, so I'm curious what some of the standard counter-points are.

1) From my limited understand, the scientific approach relies on repeatable, observable experiments. There are many things we can't observe directly, so the best we can do is observe the things around them (e.g. fundamental elements of matter, or black holes). Where is the flaw in trying to draw a parallel between this and a "higher power"? 

2) Now to side-step the actual question of if religion is real. It has been accepted by many people that homosexuality is not a choice--it's just the way some people are. It's natural and, so long as it's not hurting anyone, there's nothing wrong with it. Of course this sort of "live and let live" idea can extend to most any inclination people have. What could be said, then, to someone who tried to draw a parallel to that and religious belief? It has been reported by psychological studies that we are hard-wired to have religious belief (e.g. applying meaning to random events). So, if following the natural tendency to believe in religion doesn't hurt anyone, is it any different from following a tendency to be (fill in the blank)?

Like I said, I'm sure these points have been raised countless times by others before me. But I hope some thoughtful feedback can help me grow in understanding.

I've found a flaw in your argument.