Materialism

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The universe or the part we observe plus the rest of the universe I think you hope to be there if it is there is going to be contingent unless we find something that is the necessary entity.

That unqualified assertion is just you trying the fallacy of composition again, but it wasn’t the question in any case. Even if your guess about that was to be correct, why god rather than not god? 

Now,that entity is necessary for the universe because it is not dependent on the universe or conditioned by the universe. In other words it is not contingent on nature. If you then say that this entity is dependent on nature then you just extend nature back so we have to ask why nature is the necessary entity (which would require a sufficient reason) or if it is itself contingent to which we must ask ''on what?''

Stop digging. If you want to assert the universe necessarily to be contingent on something else, why isn’t the same true for the “something else” you insert to fill the gap – ie, “god”?

I don't I resort to the final question as it were ''How come there is something rather than nothing'' That will have a sufficient reason which will be the final reason and so we have arrived at the necessary entity

Still digging then? Again – why a supposed “final entity” rather than not a final entity?

No, that is anybody who relies on either Brute fact or infinite regress.

Wrong again – you’re the one requiring ”god” to be a brute fact remember because you’re entirely unable to answer any of the question about it that you ask about the universe.
 

You see we have arrived at the necessary entity and as Aquinus finishes off ''and that is what we call God''. No insertion there and no brute fact because we have arrived at something which has sufficient reason.

You see, we absolutely flat out haven’t. You’ve just done the equivalent of me answering the question “why rainbows” with “leprechauns”.

It’s ok – you can say it. Your answer to the question “why god” is, “I have no idea” isn’t it. So why then do you think adding another don’t know to an existing don’t know has any explanatory value at all? You’re just rehashing the stupidity of the cosmological argument here, and it’s doing you no good at all. 

Game over. You lost.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which just makes it a brute fact.

So what is the sufficient reason?

The sufficient reason is there is no other possible question therefore it contains it's own raison d'etre. It is because it is the last reason there can be in the chain and that is what lifts it out of the category of Brute fact which states that ''something is and there's an end to it.

You have not stated why it is necessary - or even how that is logically possible in that sense - and neither have you given a sufficient reason for its existence.

I have stated why it is necessary, because there can be no other further reasons which condition it or on which it is dependent and I have stated why it is necessary for the something. It answers why there is not nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That unqualified assertion is just you trying the fallacy of composition again, but it wasn’t the question in any case. Even if your guess about that was to be correct, why god rather than not god? 

Stop digging. If you want to assert the universe necessarily to be contingent on something else, why isn’t the same true for the “something else” you insert to fill the gap – ie, “god”?

Still digging then? Again – why a supposed “final entity” rather than not a final entity?

Wrong again – you’re the one requiring ”god” to be a brute fact remember because you’re entirely unable to answer any of the question about it that you ask about the universe.
 
You see, we absolutely flat out haven’t. You’ve just done the equivalent of me answering the question “why rainbows” with “leprechauns”.

It’s ok – you can say it. Your answer to the question “why god” is, “I have no idea” isn’t it. So why then do you think adding another don’t know to an existing don’t know has any explanatory value at all? You’re just rehashing the stupidity of the cosmological argument here, and it’s doing you no good at all. 

Game over. You lost.   

No you have, God is the necessary entity. Are you saying the necessary entity does not exist if so you do not understand the implications of observed contingency.

Are you trying to say that the brute fact proponents or the infinite regress proponents are closer to satisfying  the principle of sufficient reason? Then that is a perverted joke.

[jeremyp]

No you have, God is the necessary entity.

Do you have any evidence that your god exists or that he is a necessary entity?

No?

Game over.

[Stranger]

The sufficient reason is there is no other possible question therefore it contains it's own raison d'etre.

How is it possible for something to be its own reason? How does this differ from being a brute fact or logically the same as being contingent on itself, i.e. the sort of cyclic contingency that you rejected before?

It is because it is the last reason there can be in the chain and that is what lifts it out of the category of Brute fact which states that ''something is and there's an end to it.

Saying "it is the last reason there can be in the chain" is logically exactly the same as saying "something is and there's an end to it". Your "necessary entity" (as you've described it) does not differ in any way from a brute fact.

It answers why there is not nothing.

In exactly the same way as a brute fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No you have, God is the necessary entity. Are you saying the necessary entity does not exist if so you do not understand the implications of observed contingency.

Are you trying to say that the brute fact proponents or the infinite regress proponents are closer to satisfying  the principle of sufficient reason? Then that is a perverted joke.

So Vladdism comprises:

1. Making various unqualified and un-evidenced claims about the characteristics of the universe; and

2. Inserting “god” to answer them but special pleading away the same unqualified and un-evidenced assertions so they don’t apply to that god too.

Or, to put it another way: 

https://imgur.com/gallery/ApzhVFj

[Stranger]

Are you trying to say that the brute fact proponents or the infinite regress proponents are closer to satisfying  the principle of sufficient reason? Then that is a perverted joke.

Again: there is no logical difference between what you've described as a 'necessary entity' and a brute fact. Neither satisfy the principle of sufficient reason because you can't give a sufficient reason for the necessary entity's existence. All you've done is just assert that it has one in itself, without the slightest attempt at saying how that is even logically possible. You've also made a series of baseless assertions about such an entity's characteristics, i.e. you haven't given sufficient reason to believe that these are the characteristics of the proposed 'necessary entity'. And the identification with god is just a joke.

Neither have you given sufficient reason to think the principle of sufficient reason applies to existence itself. And, no, that isn't a contradiction or a joke, sufficient reason in a logical argument context is not the same as sufficient reason for physical existence. It is also the case that all logical constructs or arguments start with brute facts (premises or axioms) that haven't been argued for in themselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you have any evidence that your god exists or that he is a necessary entity?

No?

Game over.

The necessary entity is what we call God, So you accept a necessary entity which is not contingent, creative and self directing by logic but you need scientific evidence confirming it. Is that where you are.

Secondly....what is it you think you've won?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How is it possible for something to be its own reason? How does this differ from being a brute fact or logically the same as being contingent on itself, i.e. the sort of cyclic contingency that you rejected before?

Saying "it is the last reason there can be in the chain" is logically exactly the same as saying "something is and there's an end to it". Your "necessary entity" (as you've described it) does not differ in any way from a brute fact.

In exactly the same way as a brute fact.

But I am saying there is a last question namely ''why something and not nothing.'' To which going by the principle of sufficient reason, the answer is the necessary entity. There can be no further questions and therefore reasons since any other question would be non sequitur. That is the sufficient reason.

Brute fact just says something is with no explanation or need. Read Carroll on the differences between the principle of sufficient reason and Brute fact. You are saying that there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason, that is absurd.

Russell says the universe just is and there's an end to it. There is insufficient reason, obviously, but you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker and hypocritically, since you have accused me of insufficient reason but lauded Russell merely because he said what you wanted to hear.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So Vladdism comprises:

1. Making various unqualified and un-evidenced claims about the characteristics of the universe; and

2. Inserting “god” to answer them but special pleading away the same unqualified and un-evidenced assertions so they don’t apply to that god too.

Or, to put it another way: 

https://imgur.com/gallery/ApzhVFj

Sorry, but the argument from contingency, the principle of sufficient reason and the answer to the final question are all more elegant than brute fact or infinite regression. Did I say more elegant? I meant deliciously elegant.

I think you'll find the attributes of the necessary entity are anathema to naturalism and atheism. You did raise one point why only one necessary entity, good question but I think parsimony comes into it and it does raise another question ''why two?'' the answer to which could lie in neither, there would be a problem if one conditioned another or they both conditioned each other since that renders them contingent beings.

[Stranger]

But I am saying there is a last question namely ''why something and not nothing.'' To which going by the principle of sufficient reason, the answer is the necessary entity. There can be no further questions and therefore reasons since any other question would be non sequitur. That is the sufficient reason.

But "the necessary entity" in that sentence is meaningless, it might as well be "lizqonwuv67". All you're saying is the must be a reason why there is something rather than nothing and that reason has no further explanation, so it's logically identical to a brute fact.

Unless you can provide sufficient reason for the necessary entity's existence, and why it is what it is, that goes beyond "there is something rather than nothing, so there must be a reason for that", then it's just a brute fact.

Brute fact just says something is with no explanation or need.

Which is exactly what you've just done about the "necessary entity". Just giving it the name "necessary" doesn't magically provide a sufficient reason.

You are saying that there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason, that is absurd.

It isn't, for the two reasons I already explained and you ignored.

Russell says the universe just is and there's an end to it. There is insufficient reason, obviously, but you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker and hypocritically, since you have accused me of insufficient reason but lauded Russell merely because he said what you wanted to hear.

Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what other people say? Or is it that you still haven't understood the burden of proof? I am not putting forward a solution here, you are. I don't know why there is something rather than nothing. I criticised you about sufficient reason because it's you who said it must always apply. Reductio ad absurdum seems to be something else that goes over your head.

I'm making two points:

• I don't see a way in which a necessary entity can make logical sense. As it points out in the paper "...as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed." I agree, so I'm sceptical of the idea but open to being convinced if some credible argument is put forward.
  
  
• You have definitely got nowhere near making such an argument and your description of a "necessary entity" is logically identical to a brute fact, for which you have given no sufficient reason, hence contradicting your own insistence that PSR must be applied in this case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry, but the argument from contingency, the principle of sufficient reason and the answer to the final question are all more elegant than brute fact or infinite regression. Did I say more elegant? I meant deliciously elegant.

Whether you think them “more elegant” is a matter for you, but they remain wrong nonetheless for the reasons I and others give you and you just ignore. Yet again:

1. You have no idea whether or not everything in the universe is contingent on something else (your black swan mistake).

2. Even if you did know that, you have no idea whether characteristics of the components of the universe must also apply to the universe as a whole (you fallacy of composition mistake).

3. Even if you could resolve 1 & 2, you then rely on magic/mystery to get you off the hook of addressing exactly the same questions about your supposed cause (your special pleading mistake).

Well done though – you’ve achieved the trifecta of fallacious reasoning here. Quite a feat! 

I think you'll find the attributes of the necessary entity are anathema to naturalism and atheism.

Well yes – “it’s magic innit” is anathema to any reason-based position.

You did raise one point why only one necessary entity,…

No I didn’t. What I actually raised was the question of why one god rather that not one god. I even reduced it to two words for you (“why god?”) so you could grasp it. So far though you’ve shown no intention of even trying to answer that. 

… good question but I think parsimony comes into it and it does raise another question ''why two?'' the answer to which could lie in neither, there would be a problem if one conditioned another or they both conditioned each other since that renders them contingent beings.

Ironically, the principle of parsimony is what undoes your unqualified assertion of a necessary god in the first place. We already have one don’t know about some fundamental questions about the universe, and adding another don’t know regarding the same questions about a supposed cause of the universe adds nothing at all of explanatory use. 

In short, even by your dismal standards you’ve managed a pretty epic fail here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But "the necessary entity" in that sentence is meaningless, it might as well be "lizqonwuv67". All you're saying is the must be a reason why there is something rather than nothing and that reason has no further explanation, so it's logically identical to a brute fact.

Unless you can provide sufficient reason for the necessary entity's existence, and why it is what it is, that goes beyond "there is something rather than nothing, so there must be a reason for that", then it's just a brute fact.

Which is exactly what you've just done about the "necessary entity". Just giving it the name "necessary" doesn't magically provide a sufficient reason.

It isn't, for the two reasons I already explained and you ignored.

Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what other people say? Or is it that you still haven't understood the burden of proof? I am not putting forward a solution here, you are. I don't know why there is something rather than nothing. I criticised you about sufficient reason because it's you who said it must always apply. Reductio ad absurdum seems to be something else that goes over your head.

I'm making two points:

• I don't see a way in which a necessary entity can make logical sense. As it points out in the paper "...as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed." I agree, so I'm sceptical of the idea but open to being convinced if some credible argument is put forward.
  
  
• You have definitely got nowhere near making such an argument and your description of a "necessary entity" is logically identical to a brute fact, for which you have given no sufficient reason, hence contradicting your own insistence that PSR must be applied in this case.

The argument from contingency supplies the sufficient reason.
In terms of the something rather than nothing argument. There is a reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That reason must be the fundemental entity which exists independent from what it is responsible for and without it there would be nothing and that explains why it is necessary. That is different from saying ''it just is'' which is the definition. Anything further than why something rather than nothing (I cannot think of any other pertinent line or continuation of questioning)is non sequitur.

As I say you misunderstand the term Brute fact, in which there is no explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Whether you think them “more elegant” is a matter for you, but they remain wrong nonetheless for the reasons I and others give you and you just ignore. Yet again:

1. You have no idea whether or not everything in the universe is contingent on something else (your black swan mistake).

2. Even if you did know that, you have no idea whether characteristics of the components of the universe must also apply to the universe as a whole (you fallacy of composition mistake).

3. Even if you could resolve 1 & 2, you then rely on magic/mystery to get you off the hook of addressing exactly the same questions about your supposed cause (your special pleading mistake).

Well done though – you’ve achieved the trifecta of fallacious reasoning here. Quite a feat! 

Well yes – “it’s magic innit” is anathema to any reason-based position.

No I didn’t. What I actually raised was the question of why one god rather that not one god. I even reduced it to two words for you (“why god?”) so you could grasp it. So far though you’ve shown no intention of even trying to answer that. 

Ironically, the principle of parsimony is what undoes your unqualified assertion of a necessary god in the first place. We already have one don’t know about some fundamental questions about the universe, and adding another don’t know regarding the same questions about a supposed cause of the universe adds nothing at all of explanatory use. 

In short, even by your dismal standards you’ve managed a pretty epic fail here.

No, parsimony doesn't mean bowdlerising something so that it fits.
Occam's razor demands that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity therefore if the universe is contingent then we are entitled to ask on what.
If there is something about the universe which is necessary we are entitled to ask what it is. You are also talking about the fundamental questions about the universe plural, What you are doing here is changing the goalpost away from the single fundamental question is it contingent or necessary. Asking us to now focus on what science wants to know about the universe is you wanting to go back to the universe just is and that's that (brute fact) now let's talk about science. That is an attempt to avoid the issues (God dodging)

There is no magic involved since argument from contingency is a bottom up argument throwing Dennett with his skyhook accusation completely under the bus.

[Stranger]

The argument from contingency supplies the sufficient reason.

Just asserting it, does not make it so.

In terms of the something rather than nothing argument. There is a reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That reason must be the fundemental entity which exists independent from what it is responsible for and without it there would be nothing and that explains why it is necessary.

So, if there was nothing, then the necessary entity wouldn't exist, so you've now made it contingent on there being something rather than nothing and set up a cycle of contingency of the sort that you already rejected.

It's still basically a brute fact, and it still tells us absolutely nothing about what sort of thing it might be.

That is different from saying ''it just is'' which is the definition.

But all you've done is say exactly that; it just is because otherwise there wouldn't be anything. You still haven't given a reason why there is something (and hence the necessary thingy) rather than nothing.

You're just tying yourself in linguistic knots to avoid the blindingly obvious.

As I say you misunderstand the term Brute fact, in which there is no explanation.

Irony overload. You still haven't given an explanation for why the 'necessary entity' exists, rather than nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just asserting it, does not make it so.

So, if there was nothing, then the necessary entity wouldn't exist, so you've now made it contingent on there being something rather than nothing and set up a cycle of contingency of the sort that you already rejected.

It's still basically a brute fact, and it still tells us absolutely nothing about what sort of thing it might be.

But all you've done is say exactly that; it just is because otherwise there wouldn't be anything. You still haven't given a reason why there is something (and hence the necessary thingy) rather than nothing.

You're just tying yourself in linguistic knots to avoid the blindingly obvious.

Irony overload. You still haven't given an explanation for why the 'necessary entity' exists, rather than nothing.

It isn't asserted, the argument from contingency is a bottom up fully outlined argument, whether I reflect that or not doesn't in the long run matter at all. The logic of it doesn't depend on you marking my homework. Ditto the principle of sufficient reason. If you think brute fact and the principle of sufficient reason end up in the same place I suggest you read the Carroll paper again.
As I said the necessary being must exist from the implications of the argument from contingency which also describes the universe as contingent since there is no evidence within it of necessity. The conclusion of the argument from contingency is a necessary entity which is provided with sufficient reason by the argument.

The argument from the fundamental question why something rather than nothing is that there must be an answer or reason for this and that reason must be non contingent since there is nothing which can direct it. There is no further question demanding a reason that is not non sequitur and that is the sufficient reason.

[Stranger]

It isn't asserted, the argument from contingency is a bottom up fully outlined argument, whether I reflect that or not doesn't in the long run matter at all. The logic of it doesn't depend on you marking my homework.

If you can't reflect it yourself, then reference a version that isn't full of holes, like the last reference you gave. I've never seen a version that actually explains why there is something rather than nothing and how something can be its own reason to exist. See the comment from Hume #285.

Ditto the principle of sufficient reason. If you think brute fact and the principle of sufficient reason end up in the same place I suggest you read the Carroll paper again.

I don't. It's just that the argument from contingency doesn't follow the PSR itself, except in the trivial "it's magic, innit?" way.

As I said the necessary being must exist from the implications of the argument from contingency which also describes the universe as contingent since there is no evidence within it of necessity.

How would we know if you can't tell us what would make something necessary and what its characteristics would be?

The conclusion of the argument from contingency is a necessary entity which is provided with sufficient reason by the argument.

This appears to be nothing but blind faith that somebody, somewhere has made this argument in a way that isn't obviously unsound, either because the reasoning is faulty, the premises are highly questionable, or both. As I said, I've never seen such an argument and I've certainly never seen one that explains how it's logically possible for a necessary entity to have sufficient reason in itself and hence not be the same as a brute fact.

The argument from the fundamental question why something rather than nothing is that there must be an answer or reason for this and that reason must be non contingent since there is nothing which can direct it.

Which is just a brute fact, unless you can provide a reason for its existence.

There is no further question demanding a reason that is not non sequitur and that is the sufficient reason.

You're simply saying that PSR does not apply. 

It's just like the first cause arguments that demand everything has a cause until they get to their god, who just magically doesn't need one.

[jeremyp]

The necessary entity is what we call God

Well anybody can apply a label to something. What is the thing you are applying thew label "God" to?

You don't know.

, So you accept a necessary entity which is not contingent, creative and self directing by logic but you need scientific evidence confirming it. Is that where you are.

No. I need evidence that this hypothetical necessary entity exists, is not the Universe but is the Christian god.

Secondly....what is it you think you've won?

The freedom not to believe in the homicidal insane entity that you posit as being God.

[ProfessorDavey]

It isn't asserted, the argument from contingency is a bottom up fully outlined argument, whether I reflect that or not doesn't in the long run matter at all.

Any argument is asserted until it is proven. You have not proven your argument and therefore something that remains just an assertion, and indeed an assertion that despite it having been around for centuries has never come close to being proven.

[ProfessorDavey]

No you have, God is the necessary entity. Are you saying the necessary entity does not exist if so you do not understand the implications of observed contingency.

Blimey - several giant and completely unevidenced leaps in those assertions Vlad.

First there is no convincing evidence that there even is a necessary entity. Secondly there is no evidence whatsoever that god exists. And here you are putting together two strands, neither of which has a strong evidence base to claim that one is the other.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, parsimony doesn't mean bowdlerising something so that it fits.

But it does mean that inserting a don’t know to answer a prior don’t know (“why god?” rather than “why universe?”) is a dead end remember?

Occam's razor demands that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity therefore if the universe is contingent then we are entitled to ask on what.

And IF my auntie Doris had bollocks she’d be my uncle Derek. You need to demonstrate your “if” before telling us what you’re entitled to ask about it remember? 

If there is something about the universe which is necessary we are entitled to ask what it is.

And the answer remains “don’t know”. However: if there is something about “god” which is necessary we are entitled to ask what it is too. What’s your answer to that?
 

You are also talking about the fundamental questions about the universe plural, What you are doing here is changing the goalpost away from the single fundamental question is it contingent or necessary.

No I’m not. Asking a question about the origin of the universe also begets other questions, like whether that question even makes sense remember?

Asking us to now focus on what science wants to know about the universe is you wanting to go back to the universe just is and that's that (brute fact) now let's talk about science. That is an attempt to avoid the issues (God dodging)

Lying about this won’t help you here, and again if you want to reject the brute fact of the universe point how after all these times of asking would you address the same challenge about your (supposed) god also being a (supposed) brute fact too? 

There is no magic involved since argument from contingency is a bottom up argument throwing Dennett with his skyhook accusation completely under the bus.

Of course there is. That’s all you have whenever you’re asked the same questions about your speculation “god” as you ask about the universe. “It’s magic innit” (or “mystery” as you put it) is your only answer, which is when you collapse in a heap.

Look, I know you never answer questions but unless you at least try to all you have is a set of very dodgy assertions. Here they are again for you:

1. You claim everything in the universe to be contingent. How do you avoid the black swan fallacy to justify your claim?

2. You claim that all the components of the universe (supposedly) being contingent must mean that the universe itself must be contingent. How do you avoid the fallacy of composition to justify your claim?   

3. You claim that your speculation “god” is not answerable to the same questions you ask about the universe. How to you avoid the fallacy of special pleading to justify that assertion too?

We both know that this is the point at which you always run away as fast as your little legs will carry you, but these questions remain major problems for you even though you’ll never address them.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But it does mean that inserting a don’t know to answer a prior don’t know (“why god?” rather than “why universe?”) is a dead end remember?

And IF my auntie Doris had bollocks she’d be my uncle Derek. You need to demonstrate your “if” before telling us what you’re entitled to ask about it remember? 

And the answer remains “don’t know”. However: if there is something about “god” which is necessary we are entitled to ask what it is too. What’s your answer to that?
 
No I’m not. Asking a question about the origin of the universe also begets other questions, like whether that question even makes sense remember?

Lying about this won’t help you here, and again if you want to reject the brute fact of the universe point how after all these times of asking would you address the same challenge about your (supposed) god also being a (supposed) brute fact too? 

Of course there is. That’s all you have whenever you’re asked the same questions about your speculation “god” as you ask about the universe. “It’s magic innit” (or “mystery” as you put it) is your only answer, which is when you collapse in a heap.

Look, I know you never answer questions but unless you at least try to all you have is a set of very dodgy assertions. Here they are again for you:

1. You claim everything in the universe to be contingent. How do you avoid the black swan fallacy to justify your claim?

2. You claim that all the components of the universe (supposedly) being contingent must mean that the universe itself must be contingent. How do you avoid the fallacy of composition to justify your claim?   

3. You claim that your speculation “god” is not answerable to the same questions you ask about the universe. How to you avoid the fallacy of special pleading to justify that assertion too?

We both know that this is the point at which you always run away as fast as your little legs will carry you, but these questions remain major problems for you even though you’ll never address them.

Don't know is no answer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Don't know is no answer.

Though it's sometimes the only one we have. It's also by the way the only answer YOU have to the same question asked about the universe redirected to "god", namely "why god rather than not god?" rather than "why the universe rather than not the universe?".

Oh, and I see you've managed a pretty epic avoidance swerve even by your dismal standards. Once again then here are the questions you just ran away from:

1. You claim everything in the universe to be contingent. How do you avoid the black swan fallacy to justify your claim?

2. You claim that all the components of the universe (supposedly) being contingent must mean that the universe itself must be contingent. How do you avoid the fallacy of composition to justify your claim?   

3. You claim that your speculation “god” is not answerable to the same questions you ask about the universe. How to you avoid the fallacy of special pleading to justify that assertion too?

[Gordon]

Don't know is no answer.

'Don't know' is a perfectly reasonable answer when it can be concluded that more information is required/awaited. Of course, that assumes that the question to which 'don't know' is the provisional answer is coherent in the first place.

[Stranger]

Don't know is no answer.

It's better, and far, far more rational than making shit up just because you like it.