What we mean when we talk about God

[Samuel Dravis]

I've recently been wondering what people mean when they say statements like the following:

 

"God judges me."

"God loves me."

"God forgives me."

"God told me to do X."

"God hates X."

"God is calling you."

"God is love."

"God is truth."

"God is good."

 

None of those statements can be literally interpreted as true. As an example, I'll take the first one, "God judges me." What does it mean to judge someone? Well, it means to pass judgment - do something critical of the person to be judged. A judge would declare a punishment on a criminal commensurate with their crimes. Of course, if he never punished anyone - regardless of what they did - we wouldn't say that the judge was doing much judging, would we? No, of course not. Many people do bad things, yet God doesn't seem to have punished anyone. In what sense is God a judge, then? I'm not sure. Perhaps it could refer to the prohibitions in the Bible or other holy texts against some actions, but then there is a difference between having a law and judging someone based on that law. It seems reasonable to wonder why we say that God is a judge when he doesn't act like a judge.

 

Another example from the above is "God is truth." So, what do we mean by truth in this context? It's hard to figure out. Usually when we say something is true, we mean that it is true relative to some standard, i.e., if I claim that there is a monster under the bed, the way to find out if I'm telling the truth or not is to look under the bed. If I say that a table is in the hall, you can look into the hall and find the table there. If I use this classic:

 

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

 

I mean that, if the conclusion follows from the rules of logic, it is called true.

 

But what does it mean to be true without some type of standard with which to evaluate that truth? I don't know. If we don't differentiate between true and false, how can it be said that something is true? Perhaps someone can enlighten me. From what I can see now, it looks like "truth" cannot be applied in the way it is in this context; it just doesn't make sense to say it.

 

 

These along with the other statements seem impossible to evaluate literally. So what exactly do people mean when they say them? Going from the statements, it looks like we're talking about a person, perhaps an Olympian god such as Zeus (we even say God is a "he").

 

"Zeus judges me." (He acts like a judge)

"Zeus loves me." (He acts in a loving way)

"Zeus forgives me." (He acts in a forgiving way)

"Zeus told me to do X." (He actually said to do something)

"Zeus hates X." (He acts hateful towards X)

"Zeus is calling you." (He asks out loud or animates a statue to tell you he wants you)

"Zeus is love." (? - similar treatment to truth)

"Zeus is truth." (? - see preceding paragraph on truth)

"Zeus is good." (Perhaps Zeus acts like a good person)

 

But wait-- God isn't Zeus! We don't want to say God is like an Olympian god. He doesn't appear to us like Zeus would. He doesn't have a corporeal presence like Zeus does, etc., etc. OK, that just means we're being figurative. God is like Zeus in some ways. It seems like we're constantly using similes with these statements, then. But if it's possible to describe a fact with a simile it must also be possible to drop the simile and say exactly what we mean, just as I did above in the parentheses. Can we drop the simile here when we use God and still retain anything? I can't see a way to do that - we seem to have comparisons that do not compare to anything (and some that can't even be understood as comparisons).

 

That is the question then: What do we mean by statements like this when we can't take them literally and can't take them figuratively either?

 

Perhaps we must mean something other than what the words themselves mean. "God judges me." = "I act as if there were a judge over me." In this case the statement isn't talking about what God is, if anything. It merely means, "This is how I live."

 

Thoughts?

[tk102]

But what does it mean to be true without some type of standard with which to evaluate that truth? I don't know. If we don't differentiate between true and false, how can it be said that something is true?

Yes, that doesn't work for me either. I approach the question assuming the nature of God must transcend all standards for comparison and not be subject to the dichotomy of truth and falsity. Therefore, I assert God is both true and false simultaneously.

 

I further suggest God's transcendence allows for synthesis an otherwise intractable paradox. When it comes to a question about the God and you see an "either/or", think "both/and". Everywhere and nowhere. Good and evil. Free will and destiny. Mind and body. Real and imaginary. Unity and multiplicity. Personal and impersonal. Everything and nothing.

 

That these dichotomies could be unified and still retain their own split nature simultaneously, this is what is provided by transcendence.

 

"God judges me." = "I act as if there were a judge over me."

Yes and further: "God judges me" = "I judge myself" = "I judge God" To me these are all equivalent.

"This is how I live."

This is how God lives.

[Tommycat]

Well if we say God will judge me, it can mean after death. He may judge you worthy of entering heaven, or deem you unfit to enter. In that sense the judgement is his. Though technically he is more like Congress in that he determines the rules.

[Samuel Dravis]

Yes, that doesn't work for me either. I approach the question assuming the nature of God must transcend all standards for comparison and not be subject to the dichotomy of truth and falsity. Therefore, I assert God is both true and false simultaneously.

 

I further suggest God's transcendence allows for synthesis an otherwise intractable paradox. When it comes to a question about the God and you see an "either/or", think "both/and". Everywhere and nowhere. Good and evil. Free will and destiny. Mind and body. Real and imaginary. Unity and multiplicity. Personal and impersonal. Everything and nothing.

 

That these dichotomies could be unified and still retain their own split nature simultaneously, this is what is provided by transcendence.

I'm not sure what you mean. If you say that True=False, then the concept of truth appears to be rendered useless. Would you agree that, since nothing differentiatable is asserted by the statement, the assertion itself is meaningless?

 

Yes and further: "God judges me" = "I judge myself" = "I judge God" To me these are all equivalent.This is how God lives.

Alright, thanks.

 

Well if we say God will judge me, it can mean after death. He may judge you worthy of entering heaven, or deem you unfit to enter. In that sense the judgement is his. Though technically he is more like Congress in that he determines the rules.

Ok, let's look at that idea, then. Judgement. Can we judge dead people? No, generally we don't say we judge corpses; we might be able to say, "Get rid of that smelly thing!" but not judge in the sense that a court judges a person. What you mean by "after death" must mean something other than a deciding to dispose of a corpse or not. So, what is it? Usually people say it's the soul, or spirit, that is judged.

 

Sure - now, what's a soul, and can a soul be judged? Let's see what we mean by soul (spirit is a synonym for soul in this context, so I put those in too):

 

He has no soul.

His soul has left his body.

He is a soulless murderer.

He has a great soul.

He is a noble spirit.

He has spirit!

 

Alright, now let's see what we mean when we say these things, what context we use them in:

 

He has no soul. (he doesn't empathize/care about what happens to others)

His soul has left his body. (He's dead.)

He is a soulless murderer. (He is not sorry for what he's done)

He has a great soul. (big-hearted; generous, kind)

He is a noble spirit. (similar to the above)

He has spirit! (he tries very hard to do something)

 

But there is a problem. We never use soul to mean a sort of non-material "you" after you're dead (whatever that means). So... we can't mean what we usually mean by soul or spirit in this context of "God judges the soul."

 

What do we mean, then? Not sure; no one ever says what they mean by soul. They give more similes: "A soul is like a person." Ok; show me the person - but there is no person! So, it's another simile. Can we restate it in terms of the facts? No. It, like the ones in the original post, seems to be without meaning and we're back to just saying some words.

 

"A soul is a person without their body." But "person" is never used outside of talking about people with bodies. What sense does it make to say a person doesn't have a body? Suppose someone had two baskets and a bucket of absolutely identical marbles. They then proceed to separate the marbles into the two buckets. They said they have a criterion for separating the two; but the marbles are absolutely identical. There is no possible meaningful criterion for their separation. In the same way, there's no possible meaningful criterion to distinguish an incorporeal soul from nothing at all...so why would we say it can be? A=B, but B is somehow different from A? Even though we've defined them as being absolutely identical? I don't know how to make sense of that.

 

So no, I don't know how God could judge a soul, or send a soul to a place, or do anything else with a soul, since soul is essentially descriptive of an attitude, not a thing. Send an attitude to hell? What's that supposed to mean? Attitudes can't be sent to places, they're just descriptions of the actions of people...

 

We give words meaning, but they can't have meaning if we don't distinguish them from each other. The soul, if it does not mean what we use it to mean, does not mean anything. A meaningless word can't be judged any more than a dead person can.

[Tommycat]

You are making a mistake of assigning corporeal traits to something non-corporeal. You are also making the mistake of using figures of speech and all its trappings to label what is and is not a soul. When someone says someone has no soul, it has no more meaning than saying a person has no heart. If a large group of people say that a dolphin is a fish, that does not make it true. You need to consult the experts in that field A soul as defined by religious scholars is the entity of the person, that which makes the person unique beyond physical appearance. All creatures are born with a soul. When their bodies die, their soul lives on.

 

And judging happens after death in some cases anyway. So your argument fails on that front as well. Since a person can also be judged innocent of charges.

 

You are taking a very narrowly defined judge and applying it to a very loosely defined soul. If you are going to use a scholarly defined judge to define what a judge is you should use the scholarly defined soul as well, because quite honestly we judge people after their death all the time. If I say Stalin, people make a judgement immediately. If I say Hitler, people make a judgement. If I say Mother Theresa or Ghandi, people make a judgement. So by that standard, we can be judged after death.

[Darth InSidious]

To pick a single point of the original post and inflate it unfairly, SD (mayst I call thee 'Sam'?), you ask by what standard God is 'love', 'truth', etc.

 

Generally, is not a defect in ones personality - a lack of love, truth etc. not a flaw, or limitation? If God is extra-material, and is not limited, presumably, then, he cannot not be perfect, love, truth etc. Also, the fourth way.

 

I'll post a proper response later.

[Samuel Dravis]

You are making a mistake of assigning corporeal traits to something non-corporeal.

Well, the problem seems to be that there are no traits assigned to a soul. What is a trait that does not have anything to do with reality? Perhaps you can tell me, since you appear to have knowledge on the subject.

 

You are also making the mistake of using figures of speech and all its trappings to label what is and is not a soul. When someone says someone has no soul, it has no more meaning than saying a person has no heart.

I am simply pointing out what we can't mean when we say soul - what we usually mean - and I'm glad you agree.

 

If a large group of people say that a dolphin is a fish, that does not make it true.

I'm not sure you understand. I'm not saying that the objective isn't real; when people say dolphin they mean "the sort of mammal that lives in the ocean and looks like THIS." They of course don't need to use that specific word; other languages have different words for dolphin, or I could have a nickname for dolphins, etc. The point is that there exists a standard on which to judge whether something is a dolphin or not - reality. There is no such standard for soul, hence the problem.

 

You need to consult the experts in that field A soul as defined by religious scholars is the entity of the person, that which makes the person unique beyond physical appearance.

But this is an instance of the very issue. They're saying something but we can't make sense of it! What makes people unique beyond what they do, what they are, how they live, their appearance, their kindness, their love? I don't know, you don't know, no one knows, but these people keep saying there is such a standard. All I am asking is this: If we can't use the normal meaning of soul, some of which I enumerated in my last post...then what exactly do we mean? Can we differentiate that meaning from anything else? If not, then I suggest the word, used in that way, is without literal sense (it may have another meaning, like "This is how I live", but not this one).

 

All creatures are born with a soul. When their bodies die, their soul lives on.

What would differentiate a creature born without a soul from one born with one? Also, since when has anyone ever lived without their body? Explain exactly what it means to live without a body... and define your terms.

 

And judging happens after death in some cases anyway. So your argument fails on that front as well. Since a person can also be judged innocent of charges.

But that type of judging is quite irrelevant to the person. There is no possibility of punishment or reward; the most we can say about that is that judgment is for the living, not the dead. That type of judging is not the same as the type we're interested in - like that of a judge presiding over the fate of this specific person. That is the way in which God is supposed to judge us, isn't it?

 

You are taking a very narrowly defined judge and applying it to a very loosely defined soul. If you are going to use a scholarly defined judge to define what a judge is you should use the scholarly defined soul as well, because quite honestly we judge people after their death all the time. If I say Stalin, people make a judgment immediately. If I say Hitler, people make a judgment. If I say Mother Theresa or Ghandi, people make a judgment. So by that standard, we can be judged after death.

Indeed, you can use judging to mean this type of action. However, I think you can see the differences between this type of judging and the type we say that God will do. We're not presiding over the fate of someone, we're expressing outrage of someone's actions - something different, although certainly related (A judge could express his outrage in his sentence).

 

To pick a single point of the original post and inflate it unfairly, SD (mayst I call thee 'Sam'?), you ask by what standard God is 'love', 'truth', etc.

Certainly, I don't mind at all.

 

Generally, is not a defect in ones personality - a lack of love, truth etc. not a flaw, or limitation? If God is extra-material, and is not limited, presumably, then, he cannot not be perfect, love, truth etc.

Well, that is interesting. So, even if God lacks what we think of as love, it is not a flaw. By virtue of his perfection he must have something called love, though?

 

OK. Suppose we took it as unnecessary that we define love in order to say that god has it. What do we mean when we say it, then? It's not our type of love, what we understand as love. Even so, people attempt use the word "God is love." in the same sense that I use "I love my mother." - but we can't use it that way. Incorporeal beings (whatever that means, the words seem to contradict each other) can't express love. Did we just steal a word in a failed attempt to describe the indescribable? Certainly if we don't mean we we normally do by love, saying that "God is love" is equivalent to saying that "God is gklfn." Well, if we define him as infinite, maybe so (although there is, of course, no way to check if the idea is contradictory or nonsense since we never defined it in the first place). Regardless, it still doesn't mean anything to say; telling someone that "God is gklfn" doesn't enlighten them in the least.

 

Also, we are still using the Olympian view of God. God's not Zeus, though. How are we even talking about it when we're saying that God is like Zeus but not really, only the times when we want to talk about his attributes?

 

Also, the fourth way.

 

I'll post a proper response later.

I look forward to it.

[tk102]

I'm not sure what you mean. If you say that True=False, then the concept of truth appears to be rendered useless. Would you agree that, since nothing differentiatable is asserted by the statement, the assertion itself is meaningless?

No, either/or logic is not meaningless. True/false is practical in regards to describing the differences between the Many Things but impractical when trying ascribe differences within the One Thing / No-Thing.

[Samuel Dravis]

What can meaningfully be said about the world if it is treated as the same thing? I.e., if we said, "everything is essentially the same as everything else" then we lose the ability to say anything about it. What's the difference between a chair and a man? The word "difference" doesn't mean anything in this context. The question is nonsense.

 

Now this may seem useful from an ethical point of view: "I am the same as everything else" - but if we attempt to make a normative statement: "I should (act this way)" from "It is (the same as I)" it doesn't follow. We don't treat other people like we treat rocks, for example, even if both are "essentially the same."

 

Everything is everything? A tautology that needs not be said. Yes, when we define the collection of facts A=∞, any specific fact B will always be present in A... but why would we ever use A in the first place? We couldn't be saying anything meaningful by it since we're not distinguishing between anything. If something is true and false at the same time, that merely indicates that logic cannot be applied to the statement as it is, not that it actually is "true" and "false." See the liar paradox. Kripke's interpretation is most similar to mine.

 

Similarly, we couldn't be saying anything meaningful when we talk about the "One-thing / No-thing" since we don't distinguish between anything there either. Unless you mean something else by "One-thing / No-thing", I don't know how to understand it as an assertion.

[PoiuyWired]

"Zeus loves me." (He acts in a loving way)

 

Or he shags you, preferably in the form of a wild animal. And yes, this applies to most dieties out there.

[Darth InSidious]

Or he shags you, preferably in the form of a wild animal. And yes, this applies to most dieties out there.

Mmmm...nope.

 

As an Egyptologist, I object. The Graeco-Roman deities are somewhat unique in this, as far as I know.

[SilentScope001]

Eh.

 

What we mean when we talk about God? We talk about an diety who controls us. Absolute power and all that. If God was weak, he wouldn't have followers. Plain and simple.

 

The end. God can judge us, but that power of judgment stems from the fact that he got aboslute power. So, God="Absolute power".

 

Is God good? He's also supposed to be perfect, so, say, God is perfect. But it's not about 'perfect' that I follow God, I follow God because God is, well, better than me. He created me, for crying out loud! Why should I disobey him?

 

So, um, twist my statement, kay?

[El Sitherino]

Why should I disobey him?

Why should you obey him? What if he has bad things planned for you? Do you not deserve a chance for something better, even if you must make it for yourself?

[tk102]

What can meaningfully be said about the world if it is treated as the same thing?

You're still clinging to either/or: Either the world is many things or it is one thing. It is both many things and one thing and nothing.

 

In our day-to-day point of view the of many, we may say whatever you like about the world since we know it as many things. Words imply divisions between things. So it must be One Thing/No-Thing would "speak" only one word which means everything. Combine John 1:1 and Mandukya Upanishad: In the beginning there was the Word and that word is AUM.

 

So who is the one trying to meaningfully say something?

[Darth InSidious]

Why should you obey him? What if he has bad things planned for you? Do you not deserve a chance for something better, even if you must make it for yourself?

Depending on your definition of 'God', one could argue that if He is perfect, including being omnibenevolent, then He cannot do something bad to you, since this would contradict His divine will. Of course, this again, relies upon a specific understanding of omnipotence as all-powerfulness that does not contradict its user's will....

[El Sitherino]

Depending on your definition of 'God', one could argue that if He is perfect, including being omnibenevolent, then He cannot do something bad to you, since this would contradict His divine will. Of course, this again, relies upon a specific understanding of omnipotence as all-powerfulness that does not contradict its user's will....

However, the most generally accepted thing about "God" is that he has a plan.

Some people it seems are destined for only bad things in his plan. So, how does this work?

[SilentScope001]

Why should you obey him? What if he has bad things planned for you? Do you not deserve a chance for something better, even if you must make it for yourself?

 

El Sitherino, God made me. If God didn't make me, I would not exist. Ergo, I owe my loyalty to God.

 

To disobey him would basically be an act of pure egoism, which seems just dumb. I am not that great, I am not that grand, and I don't see the point of rebelling against the very thing that granted you life.

 

It's not about some 'plan' that I have to follow him, it's due to basic knowledge that you owe featly due to all the favors he granted you. Why are you worried about a string of bad luck, when you still got the gift of oxygen?

[Darth InSidious]

However, the most generally accepted things about "God" is that he has a plan.

Some people it seems are destined for only bad things in his plan. So, how does this work?

'Plan' implies time. AFAIK, God is meant to exist outside time. The inaccuracise of a 3-D language...I suppose one could both argue that God invites us all to live a 'good' life, and some of us choose to live a rubbish one by our actions, or that it's his right, but the first relies upon supposition and the second, of course, is another debate entirely.

[El Sitherino]

El Sitherino, God made me. If God didn't make me, I would not exist. Ergo, I owe my loyalty to God.

I still don't quite see why one should be loyal simply because he is their creator.

 

To disobey him would basically be an act of pure egoism, which seems just dumb. I am not that great, I am not that grand, and I don't see the point of rebelling against the very thing that granted you life.

I'm not great, nor am I grand. I do however know who I am as a person and don't need some sky-daddy to plot my life by. It's not about ego, it's about a personal choice, one which he supposedly granted me. I'm fallable, I'm corruptable (in the sense all thinking entities are), and I'm mortal. I however, am also knowledgable and capable of learning many things throughout life without owing some blind allegiance.

 

It's not about some 'plan' that I have to follow him, it's due to basic knowledge that you owe featly due to all the favors he granted you. Why are you worried about a string of bad luck, when you still got the gift of oxygen?

I owe only 2 people for things they've granted me. My parents, without them having fornicated at the moment in time that they did, I would not be here. Infact, my replacement would probably be a completely different form of person.

 

Also, I'm not worried about a string of bad luck. I'm well aware that life is a cycle, it has it's ups and downs. I believe however it is up to me to make my ups and limit my downs.

 

And not everyone thinks the gift of oxygen is that.

[SilentScope001]

I still don't quite see why one should be loyal simply because he is their creator.

 

I see no reason why one should be loyal for any other reason. To do so would be tanamtount to betrayal.

 

I'm not great, nor am I grand. I do however know who I am as a person and don't need some sky-daddy to plot my life by. It's not about ego, it's about a personal choice, one which he supposedly granted me. I'm fallable, I'm corruptable (in the sense all thinking entities are), and I'm mortal. I however, am also knowledgable and capable of learning many things throughout life without owing some blind allegiance.

 

And you still think therefore that you are better in that you don't need some other person to guide you. That's exactly what I meant by an ego problem! Thinking you have rationality, that you can think, that you don't need the help of someone else! Thinking that you are more intelligent than the 'sky-daddy'! Now, if the 'sky-daddy' doesn't exist, yes, you can make an logic. But the 'sky-daddy' as, defined in Judeo-Chrisitan mythos, states that he is all-powerful, all-mighty, and all-knowing. Thinking you don't need to listen to his logic is just pure folly.

 

You think you are smart enough. I don't. I recognize my limitations.

 

I owe only 2 people for things they've granted me.

 

The Big Bang? The American Revolution? The Roman Republic? What about those things too? They made you who you are too.

 

And who made them?

[El Sitherino]

And you still think therefore that you are better in that you don't need some other person to guide you.

Wrong. Hell, sometimes I ask tk and Niner for advice.

 

That's exactly what I meant by an ego problem!

K, sorry you don't understand the idea of an ego.

 

Thinking you have rationality, that you can think, that you don't need the help of someone else! Thinking that you are more intelligent than the 'sky-daddy'! Now, if the 'sky-daddy' doesn't exist, yes, you can make an logic. But the 'sky-daddy' as, defined in Judeo-Chrisitan mythos, states that he is all-powerful, all-mighty, and all-knowing. Thinking you don't need to listen to his logic is just pure folly.

How? If I'm doing pretty much all the same stuff he wants people to do, but without listening to him, how am I incorrect?

 

 

You think you are smart enough. I don't. I recognize my limitations.

Way to make assumptions.

 

The Big Bang? The American Revolution? The Roman Republic? What about those things too? They made you who you are too.

Uh, kind of, yet not quite. My personality and definitions of myself as a human being and living entity are not determined by these labeled events.

 

And who made them?

Their parents->their grandparents-->proteins and such that developed into life as it is today.

 

 

PS: Loyalty is earned and deserved. Not an automatic right.

[Samuel Dravis]

Or he shags you, preferably in the form of a wild animal. And yes, this applies to most dieties out there.

I'll keep that in mind if I see a bull where it shouldn't be.

 

Eh.

 

What we mean when we talk about God? We talk about an deity who controls us. Absolute power and all that. If God was weak, he wouldn't have followers. Plain and simple.

But what constitutes a "deity who controls us"? The "who" makes it sound like a person, but there is no person. The "control" makes it sound like there someone affects things but there is no distinguishable controlling going on. So what does "deity that controls us" mean? It's not what we usually mean, whatever it is.

 

So, um, twist my statement, kay?

Hopefully that will be unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

You're still clinging to either/or: Either the world is many things or it is one thing. It is both many things and one thing and nothing.

 

In our day-to-day point of view the of many, we may say whatever you like about the world since we know it as many things. Words imply divisions between things. So it must be One Thing/No-Thing would "speak" only one word which means everything. Combine John 1:1 and Mandukya Upanishad: In the beginning there was the Word and that word is AUM.

 

So who is the one trying to meaningfully say something?

So you mean a sentence like this: "AUM is everything that is the case"? If so, I'm not sure what you'd use it for. Anything with meaning that you'll ever say will imply its reality, so having a word for it seems redundant. "Everything that exists exists"? Yes, of course, otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk about it.

[tk102]

having a word for it seems redundant. "Everything that exists exists"...

Yes, except for one important thing. AUM is actually 4 elements. A+U+M+___

 

The 4th element is silence. That which is not spoken. The AUM encompasses those things that do not exist and that which cannot be verbalized.

[SilentScope001]

El Sitherino

 

Er. Agree to disagree then. Sorry then. Look like I lose again.

 

But what constitutes a "deity who controls us"? The "who" makes it sound like a person, but there is no person.

 

Well, in which case, I make an assumption that the diety is a person, not a human, but a person who can think, talk, and have its own will.

 

It's an oversimplication that could be seen as heritical in the wrong light, but it works for me, and is probraly how many people see God, as a person. Besides, if the diety is NOT a person, with its own ability to think, then you are claiming God to be the Big Bang.

[RobQel-Droma]

Do you not deserve a chance for something better, even if you must make it for yourself?

 

Why? Because of some inherent quality within us that gives us the right to do what we want? I don't think we deserve anything. If you took a piece of playdoh and molded it into a figure of a man, would you expect that object to have some kind of "right"?

 

How? If I'm doing pretty much all the same stuff he wants people to do, but without listening to him, how am I incorrect?

 

I'm not sure how that would apply. What, are you just worshiping him by accident? (I'm pretty sure that's something that, at least for Christians, we are supposed to do....)

 

PS: Loyalty is earned and deserved. Not an automatic right.

 

But isn't that putting yourself on the level of God? I myself would consider God someone to be followed simply because he is God - heck, if He really is God, where do you think you get the idea of "loyalty" from in the first place? In that case, it wouldn't be something that man thought up.