Perfection
The Great Head.
I just don't see the value in this. It seems to me that belief should be in proportion to the evidence not your feelings on the matter.storealex said:
Curt's Invitation - Prove God Exists!
- Thread starter CurtSibling
- Start date
No it wouldn't. If someone really did have some powers that go against much of our current scientific understanding, it is unlikely that that person would also just happen to know how they work.Quasar1011 said:
I mean, there are all sorts of people with "superhuman" abilities on a non-supernatural (e.g., they might be very good at mental arithmetic, or very strong), but this doesn't mean their claim that "it's because the pixies gave it to me" carries any extra weight. We still have to investigate it scientifically.
Well I apologise if someone beat me to it, but let me try.King Flevance said:I haven't read through all of this post but the first reply seems pretty good to me. I still fail to see how this was ever shot down.Atlas14 said:
First of all, he completely contradicts himself by saying "matter cannot be created nor destroyed" and then "I cannot fathom the idea of everything just existing and then eventually evolving/transforming to what it is in its current form" - if the former is true (though he means energy, not matter), then it follows that energy must have always existed, in one form or another.
Nowhere does this imply an intelligent being came first.
Alternatively, we can say that energy came into existence at some point - but again, there is nothing implying that this first existence must have been in the form of an intelligent being.
And yes, it is a cop out: saying "God came first because I say so, and because he's God he doesn't need to come from anywhere".
Why not just say that the observations we have made that energy cannot be created does not apply to when energy was first created? There is nothing in his argument that shows why an intelligent being is required - he just asserts that must be the case, and then asserts that only God could do this.
CurtSibling said:
That is an extraordinary claim. I demand to see proof. I think it is only fair, given the nature of this thread; show me evidence that cynics live longer.
This is the nub of it all. We are a combination of emotions and rational thought that never quite mix completely. Most of us lean one way or the other. Our individual leaning will play a significant part in shaping how we see the world.Perfection said:
It may even have to do with the bicameral brain we each have.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well, I can kind of see how people go this way, I just can't see how they justify their correctness to themselves.Birdjaguar said:
Their "rules of evidence" are diffferent than yours.Perfection said:
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
CurtSibling said:
I do not know why such people wish to force their dogma on others. To me it seems contrary to their belief that what they believe is true, because by prosletyzing to us, it seems as though they are trying to prove to themselves the truth of their ideas, no matter how shaky they may be.
When someone tells me that God exists, I can just shrug their preaching off, and ask of them "Where is he? Why does he have to hide?"
It is rather annoying though, their devout belief is so spooky sometimes.
Perfection
The Great Head.
But why change the rules of evidence? What's wrong with good ol' science?Birdjaguar said:
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
This and similar posts surely prove Curt's immaturity - does anybody disagree?CurtSibling said:
He starts offending anybody who asks him to make ANY steps towards even thinking he's wrong.
(Somewhere on pages 12-14 - can't find those posts.
Includes "shamanism" and "mental illness" to describe others' beliefs.
)ON-TOPIC:
1. God is "Omnipotent" - which DOES NOT mean He's gonna provide "requested miracles" to make any idiot believe in Him.
(He could but He's not "interested" in such definite foolishness.)
Omnipotent doesn't mean "fulfilling every request" - God is not a robot to fulfil commands by humans.
Even greatest righteous people can't "command" God - so any "experiments" to force God's proof are futile.
2. God is Omnibenevolent (spelling?) - which doesn't mean He (again!) fulfils requests automatically - you can be sure your request was heard and considered - but the outcome is not up to you.
If He wasn't Omnibenevolent - guess how many murderers would roam the Earth.
3. A human has an "organ" that can feel God - his heart and his brain - together they provide enough proof for those who want to "see" and "hear".
A wise man can see miracle in mundane life whilst others try to ignore even obvious miracles.
(By wise I do mean one.
04. A quite good analogy to God (just an ANALOGY - don't forget this!) would be electricity - humans can't feel it but can see and feel its effects.
(Applys also to gravity and magnetism - we have no organs that can directly sense those - only their results.)
civ2 said:This and similar posts surely prove Curt's immaturity - does anybody disagree?
He starts offending anybody who asks him to make ANY steps towards even thinking he's wrong.
(Somewhere on pages 12-14 - can't find those posts.
Includes "shamanism" and "mental illness" to describe others' beliefs.
ON-TOPIC:
1. God is "Omnipotent" - which DOES NOT mean He's gonna provide "requested miracles" to make any idiot believe in Him.
(He could but He's not "interested" in such definite foolishness.)
Omnipotent doesn't mean "fulfilling every request" - God is not a robot to fulfil commands by humans.
Even greatest righteous people can't "command" God - so any "experiments" to force God's proof are futile.
2. God is Omnibenevolent (spelling?) - which doesn't mean He (again!) fulfils requests automatically - you can be sure your request was heard and considered - but the outcome is not up to you.
If He wasn't Omnibenevolent - guess how many murderers would roam the Earth.
3. A human has an "organ" that can feel God - his heart and his brain - together they provide enough proof for those who want to "see" and "hear".
A wise man can see miracle in mundane life whilst others try to ignore even obvious miracles.
(By wise I do mean one.
4. A quite good analogy to God (just an ANALOGY - don't forget this!) would be electricity - humans can't feel it but can see and feel its effects.
(Applys also to gravity and magnetism - we have no organs that can directly sense those - only their results.)
You seem to be saying that we appear genetically programmed to believe in a God or to have spiritual natures, congratulations science agrees, what it's not sure on is whether these natural inclinations towards spirituality are part of an evolutionary benefit that comes with cementing social structures with beliefs and rule systems or whether God put it there in the first place. You could argue both sides and never convince yourself of either.
To be honest Civ2 your not going to convince anyone about anything without a tangible reason to believe you to be true, religion is personal, you can't make people believe by sharing your experience or thoughts on it. they will do this for themselves or not, depends alot on how strongly spiritual your genes make you and much less on the nature of the events you witness that lead you to belief. Least that's what I think, some people like Curt just don't have it within themselves to feel spiritual in any way, being logical and clinical about the world does have it's advantages though.
Electro-magnetism and Gravity are bad examples, you experience these everytime you sit down at your computer terminal, you can see them with your own eyes or at least understand why causal events happen, you can even trace back the evidence of why a photoluminescent spot on your screen appears due to electron influence,fundementally view the way it does this by using quantum principles, which are finely tuned and produce difinitive and absolute values or results,or quanta, or colours if you want. This type of rigorous scientific analysis is impossible with God, there's simply to little evidence to go on.
You're asking us to believe in a fairy story without any personal experience of such things, good luck with that.
MrCynical
Deity
From observation of the universe it is trivially easy to prove that, whether God exists or not, no being can exist which is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Firstly the universe does contain some evil and suffering (incontrovertible).
Any omnibenevolent being would prevent suffering if they were capable of it (it is morally unacceptable to do otherwise, and an omnibenevolent God has to make the morally correct choice at every occasion).
Any omnipotent being would always be capable of preventing any suffering. No matter what good might eventually come out of suffering, an omnipotent God could have found away to achieve the end without any suffering (from the definition of omnipotence).
Hence from observation of the universe God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Q.E.D.
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
Sidhe
I can't get your point about genes...
Read carefully before answering.
Humans DON'T have organs that feel electricity/magnetism/gravity (not that sure about G) itself - like light or sound.
Do YOU?
We can only feel the results of those - like falling down and feeling with skin or seeing a light bulb (and a PC screen as in your example).
MrCynical
Either I don't understand the words Omni... or you apply them not to God but to a "Super-Powerful Robot that is used in the place of God and was programmed by humans to fulfil their commands".
God doesn't "have to do" ANYTHING - God's not a creation of people - it's quite reversed.
YOU are obligated to God - not He to you.
Most people fail to understand THAT.
I can't get your point about genes...
Read carefully before answering.
Humans DON'T have organs that feel electricity/magnetism/gravity (not that sure about G) itself - like light or sound.
Do YOU?
We can only feel the results of those - like falling down and feeling with skin or seeing a light bulb (and a PC screen as in your example).
MrCynical
Either I don't understand the words Omni... or you apply them not to God but to a "Super-Powerful Robot that is used in the place of God and was programmed by humans to fulfil their commands".
God doesn't "have to do" ANYTHING - God's not a creation of people - it's quite reversed.
YOU are obligated to God - not He to you.
Most people fail to understand THAT.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Just droping in to drop in my 2 cents. That is mainly the reason why I stoped evangicalizing in hereSidhe said:
.civ2 said:Sidhe
I can't get your point about genes...
Read carefully before answering.
Humans DON'T have organs that feel electricity/magnetism/gravity (not that sure about G) itself - like light or sound.
Do YOU?
We can only feel the results of those - like falling down and feeling with skin or seeing a light bulb (and a PC screen as in your example).
MrCynical
Either I don't understand the words Omni... or you apply them not to God but to a "Super-Powerful Robot that is used in the place of God and was programmed by humans to fulfil their commands".
God doesn't "have to do" ANYTHING - God's not a creation of people - it's quite reversed.
YOU are obligated to God - not He to you.
Most people fail to understand THAT.
It was obvious your saying everyone can feel spiritual if they wish to see it, I'm agreeing that we are fundementally programmed to do so, I'll proceed to adress anything else about my comments you didn't understand before I make comment on your use of analogy.
MrCynical
Deity
You assert that God is omnibenevolent. He should therefore always make the correct moral decision, which is to prevent suffering if he is capable of doing so. Consider: You witness someone being attacked. Should you simply walk away and ignore it? Suppose you are easily capable of preventing the suffering caused in said attack, or indeed preventing the attack in the first place, should you simply sit back and watch? Any moral code, and indeed most religions categorically state that inaction can be immoral. An omnibenevolent God by definition cannot be immoral, and since such suffering therefore occurs, God must therefore be incapable of preventing it. Hence an omnibenevolent God cannot be omnipotent.
The origin of God is of no relevance, nor is it relevant whether God responds to commands or requests from us or not. If you can offer someone help they need, especially at no cost to yourself, but refuse to, then you are evil. I'm sure this is stated very clearly in the Bible, and probably most other religions as well. In any case it is against the moral code, which is something an omnibenevolent God cannot do.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I can pull out a couple of things from St. Thomas Aquinas's The Summa Theologica in regards to God's omnipotentcy.
Objection 1: It seems that God is not omnipotent. For movement and passiveness belong to everything. But this is impossible with God, for He is immovable. Therefore He is not omnipotent.
Reply to Objection 1: God is said to be omnipotent in respect to His active power, not to passive power. Whence the fact that He is immovable or impassible is not repugnant to His omnipotence.
Objection 2: Further, sin is an act of some kind. But God cannot sin, nor "deny Himself" as it is said in 2 Tim. 2:13. Therefore He is not omnipotent.
Reply to Objection 2: To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence. Nevertheless, the Philosopher says (Topic. iv, 3) that God can deliberately do what is evil. But this must be understood either on a condition, the antecedent of which is impossible---as, for instance, if we were to say that God can do evil things if He will. For there is no reason why a conditional proposition should not be true, though both the antecedent and consequent are impossible: as if one were to say: "If man is a donkey, he has four feet." Or he may be understood to mean that God can do some things which now seem to be evil: which, however, if He did them, would then be good. Or he is, perhaps, speaking after the common manner of the heathen, who thought that men became gods, like Jupiter or Mercury.
Objection 3: Further, it is said of God that He manifests His omnipotence "especially by sparing and having mercy" [*Collect, 10th Sunday after Pentecost]. Therefore the greatest act possible to the divine power is to spare and have mercy. There are things much greater, however, than sparing and having mercy; for example, to create another world, and the like. Therefore God is not omnipotent.
Reply to Objection 3: God's omnipotence is particularly shown in sparing and having mercy, because in this is it made manifest that God has supreme power, that He freely forgives sins. For it is not for one who is bound by laws of a superior to forgive sins of his own free will. Or, because by sparing and having mercy upon men, He leads them on to the participation of an infinite good; which is the ultimate effect of the divine power. The effect of the divine mercy is the foundation of all the divine works. For nothing is due to anyone, except on account of something already given him gratuitously by God. In this way the divine omnipotence is particularly made manifest, because to it pertains the first foundation of all good things.
Objection 4: Further, upon the text, "God hath made foolish the wisdom of this world" (1 Cor. 1:20), a gloss says: "God hath made the wisdom of this world foolish [*Vulg.: 'Hath not God', etc.] by showing those things to be possible which it judges to be impossible." Whence it would seem that nothing is to be judged possible or impossible in reference to inferior causes, as the wisdom of this world judges them; but in reference to the divine power. If God, then, were omnipotent, all things would be possible; nothing, therefore impossible. But if we take away the impossible, then we destroy also the necessary; for what necessarily exists is impossible not to exist. Therefore there would be nothing at all that is necessary in things if God were omnipotent. But this is an impossibility. Therefore God is not omnipotent.
Reply to Objection 4: The absolute possible is not so called in reference either to higher causes, or to inferior causes, but in reference to itself. But the possible in reference to some power is named possible in reference to its proximate cause. Hence those things which it belongs to God alone to do immediately---as, for example, to create, to justify, and the like---are said to be possible in reference to a higher cause. Those things, however, which are of such kind as to be done by inferior causes are said to be possible in reference to those inferior causes. For it is according to the condition of the proximate cause that the effect has contingency or necessity. Thus is it that the wisdom of the world is deemed foolish, because what is impossible to nature, it judges to be impossible to God. So it is clear that the omnipotence of God does not take away from things their impossibility and necessity.
Referance:
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP025.html
St. Thomas Aquinas said:
Objection 1: It seems that God is not omnipotent. For movement and passiveness belong to everything. But this is impossible with God, for He is immovable. Therefore He is not omnipotent.
Reply to Objection 1: God is said to be omnipotent in respect to His active power, not to passive power. Whence the fact that He is immovable or impassible is not repugnant to His omnipotence.
Objection 2: Further, sin is an act of some kind. But God cannot sin, nor "deny Himself" as it is said in 2 Tim. 2:13. Therefore He is not omnipotent.
Reply to Objection 2: To sin is to fall short of a perfect action; hence to be able to sin is to be able to fall short in action, which is repugnant to omnipotence. Therefore it is that God cannot sin, because of His omnipotence. Nevertheless, the Philosopher says (Topic. iv, 3) that God can deliberately do what is evil. But this must be understood either on a condition, the antecedent of which is impossible---as, for instance, if we were to say that God can do evil things if He will. For there is no reason why a conditional proposition should not be true, though both the antecedent and consequent are impossible: as if one were to say: "If man is a donkey, he has four feet." Or he may be understood to mean that God can do some things which now seem to be evil: which, however, if He did them, would then be good. Or he is, perhaps, speaking after the common manner of the heathen, who thought that men became gods, like Jupiter or Mercury.
Objection 3: Further, it is said of God that He manifests His omnipotence "especially by sparing and having mercy" [*Collect, 10th Sunday after Pentecost]. Therefore the greatest act possible to the divine power is to spare and have mercy. There are things much greater, however, than sparing and having mercy; for example, to create another world, and the like. Therefore God is not omnipotent.
Reply to Objection 3: God's omnipotence is particularly shown in sparing and having mercy, because in this is it made manifest that God has supreme power, that He freely forgives sins. For it is not for one who is bound by laws of a superior to forgive sins of his own free will. Or, because by sparing and having mercy upon men, He leads them on to the participation of an infinite good; which is the ultimate effect of the divine power. The effect of the divine mercy is the foundation of all the divine works. For nothing is due to anyone, except on account of something already given him gratuitously by God. In this way the divine omnipotence is particularly made manifest, because to it pertains the first foundation of all good things.
Objection 4: Further, upon the text, "God hath made foolish the wisdom of this world" (1 Cor. 1:20), a gloss says: "God hath made the wisdom of this world foolish [*Vulg.: 'Hath not God', etc.] by showing those things to be possible which it judges to be impossible." Whence it would seem that nothing is to be judged possible or impossible in reference to inferior causes, as the wisdom of this world judges them; but in reference to the divine power. If God, then, were omnipotent, all things would be possible; nothing, therefore impossible. But if we take away the impossible, then we destroy also the necessary; for what necessarily exists is impossible not to exist. Therefore there would be nothing at all that is necessary in things if God were omnipotent. But this is an impossibility. Therefore God is not omnipotent.
Reply to Objection 4: The absolute possible is not so called in reference either to higher causes, or to inferior causes, but in reference to itself. But the possible in reference to some power is named possible in reference to its proximate cause. Hence those things which it belongs to God alone to do immediately---as, for example, to create, to justify, and the like---are said to be possible in reference to a higher cause. Those things, however, which are of such kind as to be done by inferior causes are said to be possible in reference to those inferior causes. For it is according to the condition of the proximate cause that the effect has contingency or necessity. Thus is it that the wisdom of the world is deemed foolish, because what is impossible to nature, it judges to be impossible to God. So it is clear that the omnipotence of God does not take away from things their impossibility and necessity.
Referance:
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP025.html
civ2
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,650
MrCynical
One slight corrction to your example - though humans have free will - nevertheless every event is "provided" by God.
So in your example God is not just watching - He's directing the entire scene.
The problem of such situation bothered many people including the greatest.
I can provide you with an interesting example (in just the same sort of questioning ):
Moses was also bothered by this question and asked God to explain His ways.
God basically refused but still provided an example:
//
Moses saw a man walking down to a river.
He drank and then went away - not seeing he lost his purse.
Then another man came and found that purse - and went away.
Then yet a third man came and dozed out after drinking.
The first man came soon and asked about his purse.
The third man knew nothing so he denied everythin.
They fought and the third man killed the first one.
Seeing this - Moses was puzzled: "Is this your Justice, O God?"
And the answer was that:
The first man was a thief and stole the purse from the one who found it.
The third man was a murderer and killed the thief's father.
Therefore one man retrieved his stolen purse and another avenged his father by punishing his murderer.
But outwardly this was really "injust".
//
See now my point???
One slight corrction to your example - though humans have free will - nevertheless every event is "provided" by God.
So in your example God is not just watching - He's directing the entire scene.
The problem of such situation bothered many people including the greatest.
I can provide you with an interesting example (in just the same sort of questioning
):Moses was also bothered by this question and asked God to explain His ways.
God basically refused but still provided an example:
//
Moses saw a man walking down to a river.
He drank and then went away - not seeing he lost his purse.
Then another man came and found that purse - and went away.
Then yet a third man came and dozed out after drinking.
The first man came soon and asked about his purse.
The third man knew nothing so he denied everythin.
They fought and the third man killed the first one.
Seeing this - Moses was puzzled: "Is this your Justice, O God?"
And the answer was that:
The first man was a thief and stole the purse from the one who found it.
The third man was a murderer and killed the thief's father.
Therefore one man retrieved his stolen purse and another avenged his father by punishing his murderer.
But outwardly this was really "injust".
//
See now my point???
MrCynical
Deity
@Civ2
So put simply, in this case justice was done without any need for intervention. Unfortunately it is not credible that every incident of evil in the world in practice had some hidden justice in it. If you wish more specific proof, then consider any case where a very young child was murdered. Sadly this does occur in the world, yet the child had committed no crime remotely worthy of such punishment.
I see what you're saying, and have shown why it is wrong. You might clear up one or two incidents that way, but not the vast majority of the suffering that ccurs in the universe.
@CivGeneral - interesting read. It does however boil down to the fact that God has limitations, whether due to morality, free will, or something else, and so is not omnipotent in the sense that many religions seem to mean. It does of course allow for a being of such great power that it could be regarded as "omnipotent" in comparison to a human, but it would seem God's power within the universe is extremely limited (if God exists). It would seem relatively easy to prevent some incidents of suffering (a human in the right place and time could avert some incidents with ease). I also cannot from observation conclude that all incidents of suffering have some greater good as a result. Plenty of murders result in no benefit, physical, mental or spiritual, to anyone. This suggests a God whose ability to intervene in the universe is limited, possibly to the point of non existence.
The only situation I have so far conceived which allows for an omnibenevolent God, is that God cannot influence the universe at all (incompatible with just about any religion). Such a being might have originally have created said universe, and may eventually conclude it and exact justice accordingly, but for some reason is isolated from the physical universe itself. This would allow the universe to exist in the form is currently has, while retaining an omnibenevolent God. It would however make praying for, or searching for miracles and similar divine intervention a rather futile exercise.
I did consider a case where God was incapable of controverting human will within the universe, but this was irreconcilable with the destruction caused by certain natural disasters. They cannot all be the result of humanity (and certainly not the intentional result, which I regard as essential for it to be humanity's "will").
My eventual conclusion was that, assuming God must be omnibenevolent (and no one should worship one who was otherwise), then either God does not exist or, as I've said, is isolated from the universe. If I take the second viewpoint, then I have to conclude that practices such as praying for intervention in life are futile. Praying for justice at the end of the universe might make sense, but nothing else. This is of course contradictory to most religious practices.
So put simply, in this case justice was done without any need for intervention. Unfortunately it is not credible that every incident of evil in the world in practice had some hidden justice in it. If you wish more specific proof, then consider any case where a very young child was murdered. Sadly this does occur in the world, yet the child had committed no crime remotely worthy of such punishment.
I see what you're saying, and have shown why it is wrong. You might clear up one or two incidents that way, but not the vast majority of the suffering that ccurs in the universe.
@CivGeneral - interesting read. It does however boil down to the fact that God has limitations, whether due to morality, free will, or something else, and so is not omnipotent in the sense that many religions seem to mean. It does of course allow for a being of such great power that it could be regarded as "omnipotent" in comparison to a human, but it would seem God's power within the universe is extremely limited (if God exists). It would seem relatively easy to prevent some incidents of suffering (a human in the right place and time could avert some incidents with ease). I also cannot from observation conclude that all incidents of suffering have some greater good as a result. Plenty of murders result in no benefit, physical, mental or spiritual, to anyone. This suggests a God whose ability to intervene in the universe is limited, possibly to the point of non existence.
The only situation I have so far conceived which allows for an omnibenevolent God, is that God cannot influence the universe at all (incompatible with just about any religion). Such a being might have originally have created said universe, and may eventually conclude it and exact justice accordingly, but for some reason is isolated from the physical universe itself. This would allow the universe to exist in the form is currently has, while retaining an omnibenevolent God. It would however make praying for, or searching for miracles and similar divine intervention a rather futile exercise.
I did consider a case where God was incapable of controverting human will within the universe, but this was irreconcilable with the destruction caused by certain natural disasters. They cannot all be the result of humanity (and certainly not the intentional result, which I regard as essential for it to be humanity's "will").
My eventual conclusion was that, assuming God must be omnibenevolent (and no one should worship one who was otherwise), then either God does not exist or, as I've said, is isolated from the universe. If I take the second viewpoint, then I have to conclude that practices such as praying for intervention in life are futile. Praying for justice at the end of the universe might make sense, but nothing else. This is of course contradictory to most religious practices.
It's not that people change the rules of evidence, it's that they have never accepted/understood/worked with the rules used in science. For many people math and science are a complete mystery; for others the reasoning process plays second fiddle to the experiential side of life. Scientific thinking is as foreign to them as Japanese. For them to give up an emotional experiential/appraoch to life would be as difficult as it would be for you to embrace their way of looking at the world.Perfection said:
We each get locked into a way of thinking about the world pretty early in life and that can set us on a track for the rest of our lives. Being on one track can effectively keep us off of or ever understanding the other tracks we have never been on.
The dominance of one path can act as a set of blinders and keep people from fully experiencing what is possible. After having a powerful, mystical christian experience, why would anyone choose to embrace a hard-nosed scientific approach that undermines their previous experience? Would you seek out a mystical experience if you knew it would destroy your confidence in science? Not too likely. The most common reason people do step outside their current bounds is to fill a void in their life that cannot be satisfied by thier current situation and experience. And that works both ways. Great tragedy can unhinge the strongest faith.
People find a view of the world that holds things stable and acts as a foundation for their actions. Things that trigger significant emotions can upset that stability and create major changes. We struggle to maintain an orderliness to life, but easily fall prey to powerful emotions that can and do overturn well entrenched situations. An easy example is the mid life crisis during which many perfectly reasonable men come completely unglued and let their emotions make a shambles of 30 years of life. I think that the genetic origins of this life event would make an interesting study.
