Argument from Design.

[جوري]

Hmmm..do you know why logical fallacies are considered logically fallacies? It has nothing to do with semantics. Something is a logical fallacy if you have an error in the inferential leap from one premise to another, or an error from a premise(s) to the conclusion. The problem with what you're asking me is that I can't ever prove that something is not designed because you've already assumed that it is. If I point out some aspect of object x that I think implies no designer like the things I mentioned in my OP or in my response to Ferown, you will just say it was designed to be like that. In other words, the only thing you're doing is reiterating that you believe the conclusion All things are designed.

Your argument is essentially:

premise1) Since everything is designed,
conclusion:Therefore there is a designer.


SO

1)change your argument
2) agree that your argument is tautological but you dont care

Those are your options.

Let me turn that around a bit, and ask you, do you know why logical fallacies are considered logical fallacies? (sometimes it has to do with semantics/when you can't avail yourself so you descend to word play and be all self-satisfied with your pseudo-intellect ) but I digress, something is a logical fallacy if you have a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition-- a ' loaded question' is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question. Ah!

So now that we are clear, you can either re-formulate what you are pre-supposing with some logical evidence to back it up, or educate yourself equally on logical fallacies so you are not victim to them yourself

all the best

 

[CosmicPathos]

Syke:

I think you are referring to the definition of tautology in rhetoric. I was speaking of tautology in the sense that it applies to a logical argument.

You said:



I guess informally applied your argument is an example of begging the question fallacy (which is tautological). You say that all objects are designed in the universe therefore all objects you point out are designed. Tautology.



Well I am pretty sure the scientific consensus is that matter did not exist prior to the big bang. I've never heard of anyone believing in an infinite universe. I think even ancient Roman Philosophers had some notion of the universe starting and ending.



I am not a scientist by any means. BUT luckily other people are:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631




I don't understand your objection. I agree with everything you say except the last part...why would we expect life to evolve on any of the planets around us? And what does that have to do with anything we've been discussing? If you can clarify that would be great.

Ferown:

Again, I agree with everything you say. Some people look at the universe and conclude that there must be a designer. While others look at the universe and conclude that this is what we would expect if there was no designer.


Like birth defects and things like that since IF life were left to its own natural process (copying and recopying DNA etc) we should expect errors to pop up once in a while and, lo and behold, kids are born with down-syndrome, a missing eye, faces stuck together with their supposed twin. etc.. It jus tseems like the process of procreation is riddled with instances of mistakes and errors that we should expect from an unguided process (well unguided as in no God is crafting each and every child). From that I think it is most reasonable to throw out the argument from design (I dont necessarily think the argument is all bad). I just think the argument should not be used anymore. I guess to summarize you can compare these 2 things: 1) Allah commands the angels to shape the body in the mothers womb after a certain amount of days (i hope i got this hadith right) or 2) kids are born because chromosomes are mixed together from the parents and sometimes the copying process screws up. 2 seems more probable.

_muslim_

What sort of person has a pure enough window of sight to asses whether the universe was designed? i hope you don't say a muslim

By your logic, I can deny anything that was designed by man and take all the credit from him. When I see air polluting toyota going down the road, can I say the man who designed and made it is not intelligent? You are doing the same thing. Just because some parts of design do not seem "perfect" to you, you say that hence its not designed? Would you say that for a malfunctioning car? Of course the assumption is that we know from experience that men design cars but we have not seen God designing the universe.

Just because you see errors in replication, you deduce that it is a lack of design?
I quite dont understand how you do not see this massive discrepancy in your argument which essentially is that "universe would have been different if it was designed?"

 

[Lynx]

By your logic, I can deny anything that was designed by man and take all the credit from him. When I see air polluting toyota going down the road, can I say the man who designed and made it is not intelligent? You are doing the same thing. Just because some parts of design do not seem "perfect" to you, you say that hence its not designed? Would you say that for a malfunctioning car? Of course the assumption is that we know from experience that men design cars but we have not seen God designing the universe.

Just because you see errors in replication, you deduce that it is a lack of design?
I quite dont understand how you do not see this massive discrepancy in your argument which essentially is that "universe would have been different if it was designed?"

Malfunctioning car means the designer screwed up. Are you saying God screwed up? This is hilarious. Two of you have now used analogies and in both analogies the 'designer' is messing up. I think even you guys know that there are obvious problems in the universe that imply an incompetent or imperfect designer. If you are saying we just don't know enough about how the universe functions to say either way then fine. As long as we both agree argument from design does not lead to a conclusion that supports design.



Syke:

I was kind enough to give you a definition of logical fallacies in my previous thread and it had nothing to do with semantics. Maybe you should read up on logical fallacies (i have included a link just for you). Anyway, are you sticking with your tautology?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#Fal


Ferown:

We've already covered this. God did not create us perfect. We are meant to die. We are meant to be tested. Errors in replication, etc. are just that; a manifestation of that imperfection. Its not a case of one or the othe

But none of that is falsifiable. Sure it might be the case that these apparent imperfections are purposely made but how could we possibly know? It might be the case the Bible was badly written and put together in such a way to doubt its authenticity because God wanted to test the faith of believers to see if they would have faith in its message even if there are errors in it. Anyway either way The argument from design is tossed out. IF that is your conclusion like Wahabi, then I agree. The point of the this thread is to show the argument from design does not lead anywhere in support for God YET people still argue that it DOES.

 

[جوري]

Syke:

I was kind enough to give you a definition of logical fallacies in my previous thread and it had nothing to do with semantics. Maybe you should read up on logical fallacies (i have included a link just for you). Anyway, are you sticking with your tautology?

.

Indeed I was equally kind to point out the fallacy in your Q.
you may also read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
and was generous to give you another chance to re-formulate it 'make it logical' or to concede defeat, which frankly is a realization you should have had by the first reply, as to why you continue this folly, is beyond me.. maybe nothing better to do on a saturday?

all the best!

 

[Lynx]

Indeed I was equally kind to point out the fallacy in your Q.
you may also read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
and was generous to give you another chance to re-formulate it 'make it logical' or to concede defeat, which frankly is a realization you should have had by the first reply, as to why you continue this folly, is beyond me.. maybe nothing better to do on a saturday?

all the best!

*Sigh*

Skye I shall spell this out for you: if your position is that everything, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, is designed, then what on Earth (no pun intended) would I reply with?

Your position is circular; it impossible to falsify because you have the following clause that negates all examples I can provide: everything is designed.

 

[جوري]

*Sigh*

Skye I shall spell this out for you: if your position is that everything, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, is designed, then what on Earth (no pun intended) would I reply with?

Your position is circular; it impossible to falsify because you have the following clause that negates all examples I can provide: everything is designed.

sigh ^2

your position is pre-supposed.. with that we'll not get anywhere.. I can gladly give up my position if you'd come up with a logical alternative to 'design' that is simple enough to satisfy the principle of parsimony yet able to compass all that is in existence. Until then both sides will be committing boundless fallacies!

all the best

 

[Lynx]

sigh ^2

your position is pre-supposed.. with that we'll not get anywhere.. I can gladly give up my position if you'd come up with a logical alternative to 'design' that is simple enough to satisfy the principle of parsimony yet able to compass all that is in existence. Until then both sides will be committing boundless fallacies!

all the best

Occam's Razor or otherwise known as the Law of Parsimony will always argue against God since God ;\
Anyway,
Skye: my position is that the argument from Design isn't good enough. I reason that there are both things that indicate intelligent and non intelligent and therefore this argument is not conclusive to arguing for God anymore than it is useful to argue against God.

Ferown:

http://www.islam.us/hadith/muslim/033.smt.html
Number: 6393

 

[Lynx]

since God is infinitely complex and supernatural^^

Is there a way to edit on this board?

 

[جوري]

Occam's Razor or otherwise known as the Law of Parsimony will always argue against God since God ;\
Anyway,
Skye: my

ha?
whatever you were trying to say there, the question to consider is having an alternative to 'God' with a few explanations as possible.. and you are yet to do that.. well you and whatever army!

position is that the argument from Design isn't good enough. I reason that there are both things that indicate intelligent and non intelligent and therefore this argument is not conclusive to arguing for God anymore than it is useful to argue against God.

It isn't good enough for what you have deemed imperfection, not because it is imperfect but because you have convinced yourself that any aberration from the 'norm' is a flaw.. when the norm in and of itself is an imaginary standard by which things are measured or compared-- if there were nothing to dictate the process of the 'norm' why shouldn't all be born as cyclops and that would be the 'norm' or with some lyosomal storage disease and that would be the 'norm' or missing on enzyme from the urea cycle and drowning in uremia and that would be the norm, or without kertanized skin and every time we shower or come in contact with water we retain water and have to squeeze ourselves like sponges and that would be the 'norm' the fact that if you had the 'norm' all the time, how would you differentiate the aberrancies? would you be any more grateful? You are hardly grateful for all that is in existence now. Would rather sweep it an act of a lesser god 'maybe nature' or randomness of whatever folly atheists come up with to convince themselves and the world around them that it is all for nought.. How would you differentiate between things if you had no contrast? if it were day time all the time, or white without color all time..

I am bewildered at the thought process of atheists.. and have to say, it probably stems from cognitive conservatism and refusal to see what goes on in the tiniest of cells to the most complex of solar systems.. and that is very unfortunate indeed!

all the best

 

[جوري]

since God is infinitely complex and supernatural^^

Is there a way to edit on this board?

you are two posts away from that magical ability but what a shame that we'd miss all your raw blunders

 

[Lynx]

ha?
whatever you were trying to say there, the question to consider is having an alternative to 'God' with a few explanations as possible.. and you are yet to do that.. well you and whatever army!

It isn't good enough for what you have deemed imperfection, not because it is imperfect but because you have convinced yourself that any aberration from the 'norm' is a flaw.. when the norm in and of itself is an imaginary standard by which things are measured or compared-- if there were nothing to dictate the process of the 'norm' why shouldn't all be born as cyclops and that would be the 'norm' or with some lyosomal storage disease and that would be the 'norm' or missing on enzyme from the urea cycle and drowning in uremia and that would be the norm, or without kertanized skin and every time we shower or come in contact with water we retain water and have to squeeze ourselves like sponges and that would be the 'norm' the fact that if you had the 'norm' all the time, how would you differentiate the aberrancies? would you be any more grateful? You are hardly grateful for all that is in existence now. Would rather sweep it an act of a lesser god 'maybe nature' or randomness of whatever folly atheists come up with to convince themselves and the world around them that it is all for nought.. How would you differentiate between things if you had no contrast? if it were day time all the time, or white without color all time..

I am bewildered at the thought process of atheists.. and have to say, it probably stems from cognitive conservatism and refusal to see what goes on in the tiniest of cells to the most complex of solar systems.. and that is very unfortunate indeed!

all the best

I never said that something is not designed BECAUSE IT goes against the 'norm'. I didn't say the word 'norm' once. I didn't even imply it. Anyhoo what standard do you compare with when you say things are designed? The standard argument from design compares the universe with other designed objects and concludes there must be an intelligent designer. So whatever standard you're using to determine 'universe is designed' is probably the standard I am using to determine it's full of mistakes ;o

 

[جوري]

I never said that something is not designed BECAUSE IT goes against the 'norm'. I didn't say the word 'norm' once. I didn't even imply it. Anyhoo what standard do you compare with when you say things are designed? The standard argument from design compares the universe with other designed objects and concludes there must be an intelligent designer. So whatever standard you're using to determine 'universe is designed' is probably the standard I am using to determine it's full of mistakes ;o

you didn't even imply it? what does
' occur naturally'
mean to you?

and

'these sort of 'bad designs' a rational person should infer no designer.'




you are yet to define 'natural' and what constitutes a 'bad design'
this is an argument of your making, I am only working with what you have written. Question-begging presuppositions and a faulty conclusion thereof, tells me that you are the one who needs to clarify your position not the other way around? what say you?

logic and fudging shortly thereafter really aren't your strong suit? :hmm:
I think things might look better once your able to edit, then you can do like our respected member Hugo and erase the evidence if not already quoted?

all the best

 

[CosmicPathos]

Malfunctioning car means the designer screwed up. Are you saying God screwed up? This is hilarious. Two of you have now used analogies and in both analogies the 'designer' is messing up. I think even you guys know that there are obvious problems in the universe that imply an incompetent or imperfect designer. If you are saying we just don't know enough about how the universe functions to say either way then fine. As long as we both agree argument from design does not lead to a conclusion that supports design.



Syke:

I was kind enough to give you a definition of logical fallacies in my previous thread and it had nothing to do with semantics. Maybe you should read up on logical fallacies (i have included a link just for you). Anyway, are you sticking with your tautology?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#Fal


Ferown:


But none of that is falsifiable. Sure it might be the case that these apparent imperfections are purposely made but how could we possibly know? It might be the case the Bible was badly written and put together in such a way to doubt its authenticity because God wanted to test the faith of believers to see if they would have faith in its message even if there are errors in it. Anyway either way The argument from design is tossed out. IF that is your conclusion like Wahabi, then I agree. The point of the this thread is to show the argument from design does not lead anywhere in support for God YET people still argue that it DOES.

So concluding from what you deem to be imperfections, you say its not designed at all? So from imperfections in the car (introduced by the messing up of the human designer as you just said), you claim that it was not designed in the first place? I personally dont mind a car releasing black smoke from its silencer. As a kid, I used to love it! cuz it seemed very similar to the jet stream. Only environment-conscious bunch would find it to be not normal .... so again, as Skye mentioned, what is the yard stick for measuring designlessness? Its the same lying paradox. You cannot claim that everything in the universe is not designed because if it were you would be a part of that chaos and I would not expect you to write coherent sentences here. Just like if a person says that "I always tell a lie," he might actually be lying right now too. But since you are a designed being, at least from your consistent behavior and bodily mechanisms, I cannot accept your position that everything is design-less.

I would not say God messed up. He willed "imperfections" for the material world to continue and there they are. Just like how He willed Prophet Muhammad pbuh to be stoned by the people in Taif, despite him being His beloved. God wills what He wills. It does not mean that He loves whatever He wills. He might hate it but He does it so that we see all the diverse experiences of life. I am afraid that we are treading into the theological issues of Qada wal Qadar.

 

[Lynx]

you didn't even imply it? what does
' occur naturally'
mean to you?

and

'these sort of 'bad designs' a rational person should infer no designer.'




you are yet to define 'natural' and what constitutes a 'bad design'
this is an argument of your making, I am only working with what you have written. Question-begging presuppositions and a faulty conclusion thereof, tells me that you are the one who needs to clarify your position not the other way around? what say you?

logic and fudging shortly thereafter really aren't your strong suit? :hmm:
I think things might look better once your able to edit, then you can do like our respected member Hugo and erase the evidence if not already quoted?

all the best

May Allah help me in dealing with the likes of you:

Ameen

NOW.

Pay careful attention: Can you please tell me how your position differs from the following:

"Everything is designed so there is nothing that could possibly be a bad design since everything is designed."

Also, I asked you in the previous thread what you consider a good design to be. If you answer that then I will be able to answer why I think x is a bad design. I can tell you now but I am afraid you won't get it unless I spoon feed answers to you. You are not the brightest star in the universe so I have to slow down.


AND I would really prefer a discussion where there is none of this forum insulting talk (it's so pointless and people only do it because they are behind computer screens)...but you don't seem to extend that courtesy to people here so I hope you don't mind if I am equally honest with you.

Wahabi

So concluding from what you deem to be imperfections, you say its not designed at all? So from imperfections in the car (introduced by the messing up of the human designer as you just said), you claim that it was not designed in the first place? I personally dont mind a car releasing black smoke from its silencer. As a kid, I used to love it! cuz it seemed very similar to the jet stream. Only environment-conscious bunch would find it to be not normal .... so again, as Skye mentioned, what is the yard stick for measuring designlessness? Its the same lying paradox. You cannot claim that everything in the universe is not designed because if it were you would be a part of that chaos and I would not expect you to write coherent sentences here. Just like if a person says that "I always tell a lie," he might actually be lying right now too. But since you are a designed being, at least from your consistent behavior and bodily mechanisms, I cannot accept your position that everything is design-less.

I would not say God messed up. He willed "imperfections" for the material world to continue and there they are

Hmm, God willed the imperfections? So there is nothing that could possibly falsify your position right? Since if anything I point out can be explained as being done on purpose. Again, this proves my point that arguing from Design is a moot argument for proving God. It's tautological and therefore it should be dropped !

 

[CosmicPathos]

Malfunctioning car means the designer screwed up. Are you saying God screwed up? This is hilarious. Two of you have now used analogies and in both analogies the 'designer' is messing up. I think even you guys know that there are obvious problems in the universe that imply an incompetent or imperfect designer. If you are saying we just don't know enough about how the universe functions to say either way then fine. As long as we both agree argument from design does not lead to a conclusion that supports design.



Syke:

I was kind enough to give you a definition of logical fallacies in my previous thread and it had nothing to do with semantics. Maybe you should read up on logical fallacies (i have included a link just for you). Anyway, are you sticking with your tautology?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#Fal


Ferown:


But none of that is falsifiable. Sure it might be the case that these apparent imperfections are purposely made but how could we possibly know? It might be the case the Bible was badly written and put together in such a way to doubt its authenticity because God wanted to test the faith of believers to see if they would have faith in its message even if there are errors in it. Anyway either way The argument from design is tossed out. IF that is your conclusion like Wahabi, then I agree. The point of the this thread is to show the argument from design does not lead anywhere in support for God YET people still argue that it DOES.

May Allah help me in dealing with the likes of you:

Ameen

NOW.

Pay careful attention: Can you please tell me how your position differs from the following:

"Everything is designed so there is nothing that could possibly be a bad design since everything is designed."

Also, I asked you in the previous thread what you consider a good design to be. If you answer that then I will be able to answer why I think x is a bad design. I can tell you now but I am afraid you won't get it unless I spoon feed answers to you. You are not the brightest star in the universe so I have to slow down.


AND I would really prefer a discussion where there is none of this forum insulting talk (it's so pointless and people only do it because they are behind computer screens)...but you don't seem to extend that courtesy to people here so I hope you don't mind if I am equally honest with you.

Wahabi



Hmm, God willed the imperfections? So there is nothing that could possibly falsify your position right? Since if anything I point out can be explained as being done on purpose. Again, this proves my point that arguing from Design is a moot argument for proving God. It's tautological and therefore it should be dropped !

Your assumption in this whole argument is that if the universe was designed, it would be perfect and there would be no "errors." This assumption is flawed because you want the designer to produce a design which you like. You can call him an imperfect designer if His design does not meet your requirements but then also develop the humility to consider yourself an imperfect being, which your probably do as you admitted there are errors in the universe, regardless of whether you believe in an imperfect Designer or not. Since you do consider yourself imperfect, I am not sure if I should accept your "requirements" from the Designer, if he exists from your pov, which you, being an imperfect thing, would consider perfect.

 

[Dagless]

Malfunctioning car means the designer screwed up. Are you saying God screwed up? This is hilarious. Two of you have now used analogies and in both analogies the 'designer' is messing up. I think even you guys know that there are obvious problems in the universe that imply an incompetent or imperfect designer. If you are saying we just don't know enough about how the universe functions to say either way then fine. As long as we both agree argument from design does not lead to a conclusion that supports design.

Ferown:


But none of that is falsifiable. Sure it might be the case that these apparent imperfections are purposely made but how could we possibly know? It might be the case the Bible was badly written and put together in such a way to doubt its authenticity because God wanted to test the faith of believers to see if they would have faith in its message even if there are errors in it. Anyway either way The argument from design is tossed out. IF that is your conclusion like Wahabi, then I agree. The point of the this thread is to show the argument from design does not lead anywhere in support for God YET people still argue that it DOES.

Firstly, I have not said the designer screwed up. The designer is all powerful, if he wants to make a being which is susceptible to disease and can die then thats his call. To say a designer cannot do this is limiting the designer. Imperfection does not automatically equal no designer.

We know the imperfections are purposely made because we have been told so in the Quran.

The bible example is a bad one. You are implying purposeful deception. God does not deceive people. We have been told in the Quran we will die, and we die. There is no "error" in our creation. We are made this way for a reason.

Anyway, we digress.

The original argument actually had the following points as to why there could not be intelligent design:

1) most obvious is birth defects
2) diseases that occur naturally
3) huge vaccums in space

These have been answered.

There was also:

1.If the universe exists without an intelligent designer then we should find: a)order and design & b)Disorder and apparently random appearance.
2. and we have both
3.so the universe does not have an intelligent designer.

This has been answered.

the argument from design does not lead anywhere in support for God YET people still argue that it DOES

This is quite general because we've established that what some people see as proof others do not.
The initial energy had to come from somewhere. You said that the laws were a result of being in this universe and that it is only what we observe. I completely agree with that but why not look deeper? As in what enforces these laws, why are they here? Even if you maintain it is random, randomness itself and even the concept of random still requires an instigator. Why is there this concept? when there doesn't need to be anything.

Since this discussion is linked to Islam, it should be pointed out that this is only one of many aspects to faith. When you add things like the Quran, etc. the argument becomes more compelling.

I would not say God messed up. He willed "imperfections" for the material world to continue and there they are. Just like how He willed Prophet Muhammad pbuh to be stoned by the people in Taif, despite him being His beloved. God wills what He wills. It does not mean that He loves whatever He wills. He might hate it but He does it so that we see all the diverse experiences of life. I am afraid that we are treading into the theological issues of Qada wal Qadar.

Nothing can happen without Gods will but when people do unjust things to others it is not God making them to do it, it is their own choice. God only allows the free will to be expressed. They take the full blame.

 

[Asiyah3]

_muslim_

What sort of person has a pure enough window of sight to asses whether the universe was designed? i hope you don't say a muslim

You misundrestood me
The story I quoted has a lesson. I hope that you will look into your attitude and heart for that is the real window.


I know you are not a muslim, but I will still quote this:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no good deed that will be put in the balance that will weight heavier than a good attitude. The one who has a good attitude will reach, because of it, the level of those who fast and pray.” (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, 2003; Abu Dawood, 4799).

It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was asked about that which will admit most people to Paradise. He said: “Fear of Allaah and a good attitude.”

I hope you will read the story again

 

[جوري]

May Allah help me in dealing with the likes of you:

Ameen

NOW

.
funny crap!

Pay careful attention: Can you please tell me how your position differs from the following:

"Everything is designed so there is nothing that could possibly be a bad design since everything is designed."

We are not discussing my position, we are discussing yours, do you think you can focus on your end of the game so that all that transpires thereof makes more fluid sense to you?

Also, I asked you in the previous thread what you consider a good design to be. If you answer that then I will be able to answer why I think x is a bad design. I can tell you now but I am afraid you won't get it unless I spoon feed answers to you. You are not the brightest star in the universe so I have to slow down.

lol.. I enjoy how you flatter yourself. I am not the one inventing a thousand word around 'natural' or writing of 'flaws' and then expecting that it should take flight well because you were so convinced of what you'd written. I did point out that you started your Q with a fallacy and showed you that there can only be two approaches to the replies. One which didn't please you..
again leaving me with the question, why do you pose asinine platitudes to others when you can't elucidate your own point? Do you expect a building to take off without proper foundation? I can't build an argument or elucidate a point based on garbled drivel!

AND I would really prefer a discussion where there is none of this forum insulting talk (it's so pointless and people only do it because they are behind computer screens)...but you don't seem to extend that courtesy to people here so I hope you don't mind if I am equally honest with you.

Perhaps if you start with yourself and lead by example, things might look better? what say you?

all the best

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

One which didn't please you..
again leaving me with the question, why do you pose asinine platitudes to others when you can't elucidate your own point? Do you expect a building to take off without proper foundation? I can't build an argument or elucidate a point based on garbled drivel!

Why not just admit that you don't understand the argument and leave the discussion?

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,


Why not just admit that you don't understand the argument and leave the discussion?

Peace

\Greetings,

why don't you formulate your pal's argument so that even those simple minds can have it at easy digestible bits? You are not that deep, but you are thankfully predictable.. once a would be pal is sinking in a hole you come into to his aid.. I must have told you before, I find it admirable, but does nothing to solidify your position.

all the best