So one of my poll questions was - Are philosophers, regardless of gender, generally submissive or dominating? Most philosophers have strong opinions. I would think that very few people that come here want to be told what to think. Just as most people that go to church are asking for direction. So what does it mean for a philosopher to have a dominating intellect? It means that most philosophers have strong ideas about how things should be. I think this is a good thing. The problem is we have a little difficulty agreeing with each other – how things should be. In the end this is a good thing too because ideas get distilled into the highest order – sometimes. Sometimes we do not see the forest for the trees.

How many notable philosophers, in all of human history, have been women? Not many – a few to be sure – a little more in the last 100 years. Well, since we are talking about the forest and trees – why are most of the trees male? Is it because men are smarter than women? Is it because women don’t care about philosophy? Have women been welcomed, over the centuries, in philosophy – mathematics – science – theology – higher education – business – politics – the power elite? The answer to all these questions is – NO – women have not been welcome. In fact – quite the opposite – they have largely been denied access to the doors of power and knowledge.

Well – why not include women? The answer is very complex and very uncomfortable for a certain segment of society – men. You have all heard the saying that a man has 2 heads – right? The thing is - if you are a man – you never know which one will be in charge. You can see ample evidence of this fact in this thread. I find it embarrassing, although I am not surprised, to see sexual innuendo thrown about here. This is a serious subject – however – most men hate it. The reason is simple – no courage.

Men have controlled this world, with a few exceptions, with an iron fist for the last 5000 years. Have they done a good job? How are things looking today? Are you happy with the way things are turning out? Is Trump your man because he is so……..psychologically secure…….respectful…….self-effacing…….non-equivocating…….truthful? Is the world going in the right direction? Ah…..what direction would that be?

We are at a juncture in human history. We are running out of time to make course corrections. Women are our last – best hope for the future. I have said before on this forum that ideas rule the world. Not money – not military – not politics – ideas. Philosophers have a job – our job is to create new ideas. We desperately need to balance our ideas to be both male and female. Women truly are great thinkers – however – they think differently than men. This is a good thing. We don’t need the same thinking – we need new ideas and ways to live. We need women now more than ever.

Submission is not necessarily a bad thing. The giving over of oneself can be the ultimate act of love and devotion. If it is done right – it is not weakness – quite the contrary. There is wisdom in the female intellect which is unsurpassed in the human experience. It can be the apotheosis of all that is human. Women have something to teach – to all of us – they are mentors – mothers – inspiration – divinely blessed and gifted. Do not think of submission as a weakness – always.

lol... I don't think that's true. As for who is more vulnerable, clearly the one who is physically weaker, that's obvious. But being vulnerable is not the same as being submissive. Indeed, one can be the vulnerable one, and also be the powerful one. — Agustino

Like I said - Unfortunately, many a man has missed this point.

Are women generally submissive to men? Yes, I think they are. Why, the reason is obvious – men are physically stronger and bigger. Most men can physically dominate a woman. Do they? Not usually if they are civilized. The point is they potentially can if they choose to do so. The reverse is not true – mostly. Most people, including men, will think twice before pushing around Ronda Rousey. Intimidation, whether it is real, imagined or implied is always present. This fact is not lost on the female intellect.

There are other reasons women are submissive to men - for example – sexual intimacy. When a man and woman make love – both are vulnerable – but who is most vulnerable? The woman – lying down – legs spread – submits to a man. This is a holy action if done right. The woman submits to the man, trying to communicate the power of softness, the embrace of love, the intelligence of giving, the cradling of hearts desire and the holiness of communion. A woman in all her glory is trying to teach a man that her submission is a path to love – holiness - for them both. We learn love first from a mother – then from a woman lover – when we are ready to appreciate it. Unfortunately, many a man has missed this point.

It is important to not stereotype people based on gender. — Lone Wolf

We are all cowards in one way or another – male & female - sometimes. One thing is for certain in this life – things change. I may be a coward today about my finances or physical fitness; but tomorrow I can make a course correction. The same is true about ideas, feelings or just about anything. Humans are a deliberative bunch. We do stereotype – constantly – it is the nature of the beast. Men are strong – aggressive – potentially violent. Are all men this way? No, but a healthy percentage are. Women are nurturing – sexually appealing – not usually violent. Are all women this way? No, and we all change from moment to moment. What may be true today, is not necessarily so tomorrow. However certain characteristics tend to remain – especially in relation to gender.

So what is the point of my poll questions? I think some of the early responders saw the dilemma I am proposing. Many of their responses were less than noble. I also think that the lack of responses - engagement is quite revealing. I see a lot of avoidance/caution in this thread – very interesting. Sometimes you can learn more about what people think – by them not saying anything. Tell me what you think about women, if you are a man; it will tell me what you think about yourself. Are you ready to see yourself – do you have courage?

Do you like puzzles? Actually this question is rhetorical because we all know the answer already. Philosophy is in the business of solving puzzles. What does it take to solve puzzles? It takes intelligence, analytical skill, spatial recognition, intuition and a few other reasoning characteristics. Philosophical puzzles require another very important characteristic which is not necessarily part of reasoning – courage. If one wants to be really good at philosophy – you are going to need courage - a lot of it.

Courage has more to do with emotions than with reasons. It is a kind of crossbreed but I think predominately emotional. I think that philosophers can smell a problem a mile off. It is natural that this be so; because we are detectives in the investigation of ideas. We examine the corpus of humanity for its faults, flaws, fallacies and fiction. We are good at seeing the outer world – but how good are we at looking at ourselves? Now here is where we have a sticky wicket.

Emotional intelligence is quite different than intellectual strength. I think reason can help us to know our emotions, but it only takes us so far. What is the job of a philosopher? It is to know thyself. In knowing ourselves we have a window to the world. We want to know ourselves so that we can know everything else. We gain a portal to the universe. What is one of the best portals to discover who we are? It is through the eyes of the other. If you are a man – that means the eyes of a woman and vice versa. How do we understand the color black – by observing what it is not? Want to know yourself – look through someone else’s eyes.

Do we play games with ourselves? I think we do; one of the biggest is hide and seek. We hide from ourselves and seek ways to avoid answering questions that make us uncomfortable. Well, why do we do that? The answer is very simple – lack of courage. What are we afraid of? We are afraid of ourselves. When a man or woman tells you that they are very smart – what do you think? The first thing I think is the opposite. That they are feeling insecure about their intelligence. It does not mean they are not intelligent – it means they are insecure – they have questions about it. “Does this dress make me look fat”? There is only one right answer – NO! If you answer any other way – you don’t understand people and probably not very much about yourself.

I will try another thread in an effort to answer some of my questions.

Is the poll the tally of the answers to the question?

Can I ask multiple questions and have multiple polls on the same thread?

Mutual consent or not doesn't change the wrongness of it. It is wrong because participants who engage in it hurt their own psyche, in ways that prevent them from fully enjoying intimacy. Sex has the potential to bring people together, but misused, it just shuts one inside of themselves even more. Someone who has sex without being committed loses out. Also, promiscuous sex betrays a character defect - it shows someone who cannot control their passions, and does not respect their body and mind and is easily lured by easy pleasure. In the end, Sapientia, regardless of what you think, virtue is its own reward, and the virtuous man, as Socrates said, "cannot be harmed, either in life or in death!". Or as Jesus said, "seek first the Kingdom of Heaven [Virtue] and ALL things shall be added unto you". Or to come back to Socrates: "Wealth does not bring about excellence, but EXCELLENCE MAKES WEALTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOOD FOR MEN, both individually and collectively". It is not sex that is bad, but the lack of virtue that underlies promiscuous sex that is bad. And if you think it's otherwise, then I think you are decieved and under the spell of an illusion, so I advise that you think carefully about this. By abandoning virtue, a man or a woman abandons that which makes everything else good in this world. That is why the first Biblical commandment was: "have no other Gods before me" - because virtue (God) makes ALL other things good, and nothing can be good without virtue. — Agustino

These are beautiful thoughts - thank you.

Freedom and empathy enables one to transcend the illusions of subjective self-interest that we project to the external world. We decide reality as it subjectively appears to us so the actual activity of this experience is merely the cognition between the relationship of objects.
Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general, its matter
— Kant, A43/B60
There is no substance to this experience because the uniformity of space and time is not merely the materially causal relationships between things; it involves an understanding of the metaphysical expressions dependent on intuitions because consciousness and by extension people are not mere things and therefore can transcend the material. So two people who have gone beyond this propensity attain the necessary cognitive conditions to form a dialectic that expose these illusions; they can 'see' the phenomenon of one another.

That condition itself, the ability to be free from the illusions caused by this subjective self-interest, is only possible through love (conscience/empathy/moral consciousness). Love is intuitive rather than logical, it involves a 'leap of faith' so to speak just as one has faith in God. God is perfection, the perfect Good, the representation of grace and love that as we seek God through this faith or intuition, we seek this perfection that we of course will never reach, but the process of reaching out to God - to love God - enables the clarity that subjective self-interest blinds us from, thus God is love. — TimeLine

These are some of the most cogent and beautiful words I have ever read. Thank you for your clarity and the depth of your thoughts. I would add some of my thoughts here as well - I hope they resonate:

Love is an act of giving.
We give to whom we cherish and cherish to whom we give.
Love is both a leap of faith because it wants to exist and a knowing that it does exist.
Love wants to persist because it is its own reward.
Love is bound by sacred honor.
Love is held at the apex of consciousness and permeates the entire being.
Love yearns for expression and strives for contact and continuation.
Love is holy.
Love is a secret dwelling on public display.
Love is a contract between two souls; extremely fragile and infinitely powerful.
Love is a bridge between the heart and desire.
Love is helpless to defend itself and at the same time indestructible.
Love lives beyond life’s boundaries.
Love is the elixir of eternal life.
Love is infinite and lives in the smallest places.
Love is a lamp in the depths of the darkest night.
Love is a guide and messenger.
Love is a dwelling in the heart of consciousness.
Love is gentle and kind.
Love is quiet and screaming for expression.
Love lives for itself and a companion.
The gift of love is beyond measure.
The measure of love is the gift of a companion.
Love has power beyond imagination.
Love can only be given, never taken.
Love hears the rhythm of the universe.
Love is a creative force.
Love is its own reward.
Love is learned from a mother.
A father, sister or friend can be a mother figure and teach love.
Love is held in consciousness.
Love is the most valuable and powerful thing in consciousness.
The amount of love one has is directly proportional to our ability to give it.
Love transcends time.
Love is accepting.
Love is patient.
Love is a sweet power.
Love is a song that the heart hears.
Love is a yearning that wants to connect.
To find love, look inside, and see outside.
Love and imagination walk hand in hand.
Love sees great distances and small places.
Love craves itself.
Love feels the others pain and delight.
Love is fragile.
Love is a force only limited by imagination.
Love is the most powerful force in the universe.
Love is held in the mind’s eye and so is the universe.
Love is what binds us to the universe.
Love is a force of nature.
Nature manifests love.
Love will give its life for the other.
Love is a gift and our quest.
Love is insecure.
Love is a yearning that may atrophy or grow.
Love is a choice.

I know many "fervent atheists" who are "determined to save their societies". I don't agree with them, but I respect their fervor, and find it lacking in more of (but not all of) my Christian friends. — Noble Dust

Indeed, fervor is the key. I see atheists as spiritual beings of a sort. Atheists are profound thinkers. They have looked deeply at the universe and come to an understanding – a knowing. This knowing has logic, but more importantly it is a feeling of what is right. After all the logic and reasoning is done they arrive at a conclusion – an evaluation. The conclusion is almost superfluous to their sense of being settled. What we seek is to be settled – we want to know – something. This knowing is a spiritual journey – no matter what you think. The journey is special and it is worthy. Atheism is a religion of one. It doesn’t matter if they think they are God or there is no God. They have come to a knowing. What we see in an atheist intellect is courage – this is noble.

Is it right? Who cares – it is a conclusion of significance. The significance is that they have a feeling – a knowing. We live our entire life moving from one feeling to another. We play leap frog in our minds from one moment to the next. The feelings are what makes our journey unique and it is a spiritual quest to find ourselves. To know thyself is a holy quest and it is unending. I applaud the man or woman of courage who seeks their own destiny and knowing. Those people who line up to be told what to think – do not show much courage.

Christianity may grow in the rest of the world, but it is on a steady decline in the West. Which is very unfortunate, as more and more people stumble upon a worldview that is a cancer toward Western society - postmodernism. And all that it encompasses. Existentialist thought, nihilism, moral relativism, all of it is causing the West to decay. It truly is a sad sight, what once was the bastion of human civilization, has been reduced to nothing more than a fraction of what it once was. Nuclear Families are now a rarity, hope is a commodity, individuality and responsibility are downplayed. You cannot expect Western values to remain afloat when you tear apart the very institutions, ideas, and beliefs that they stand on. You can't have the West without God, it is as simple as that. — Gust

So, you bemoan the decay of the west. Ok – I bemoan the decay of the world, because we do not understand how civilization got here. Where do you think civilization comes from? How did it get its start? Think back – way back – in the cave – or even before the cave – what happened? Or, maybe I should first ask – what is civilization? Civilization is a social contract. People band together for mutual benefit – right? So, what is the first “banding” together for mutual benefit? It is a mother and a child. A mother and child is the first social contract and the foundation of all civilization. What holds a mother and child together – love. A mother loves her child because she loves herself. A mother loves herself because she learned love from her mother. A very practical dynamic – that - sets in motion a force - which humans use to propel themselves through life’s journey. What is the basis of civilization – it is the love bond between a mother and child. Love is a kind of contract between two beings. I call mother/child love the first human contract. It is an agreement to protect, nurture, cherish and persist. This contract is what gives civilization its start. More importantly – it is what holds civilization together – today and on into the future.

Want to save the world – honor and cherish women – now. It is not a guarantee – but it is a good start. You want a better world – support your local love machine – mother and child.

What we need in society is to stop trying to make computer scientists out of miners. When someone – anywhere – is displaced in their job – sit down and talk to them and ask – what do you like to do? For miners or autoworkers it probably involves working with their hands. How about teaching a man or women to make furniture with hand tools? No big investment (less than $500 in tools), no long training- if at all, no commute to work (you can do it on your kitchen table) and best of all – no boss.

If you see a man or women outside of the supermarket begging – with a sign “homeless & hungry” - what do you think? Do you say to yourself – what a smelly, dirty bum? How about if you see a person with a sign that says – “I lost my job at the mine, but now I make birdhouses for sale”. Would you talk to them? Ask some questions? Let’s ask some theoretical questions:

How did you get started making birdhouses?
A friend showed me how to do it.
Where do you get the wood?
I get stickers for free at lumber yards and old pallets companies don’t want.
Cool, how about the paint?
I go to garage sales and recycling centers and get the paint for very little cost. I also ask my customers if they have any materials they think I could use.
Hey, I got some stuff – can I bring it to you?
Sure – I live in town.
How much for this birdhouse?
I don’t put a price on anything – I ask for an exchange that makes us both happy.
I give you $50 and a promise of more material – what is your cell phone number?
Deal!


You can sell birdhouses, flowers in a planter, art on cardboard, Calligraphic poetry on repurposed frames from the thrift store. The ideas are limitless and cheap to produce. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day – teach a man to fish and…………..

Show people how to be self-reliant and maintain self-respect.

There is a problem within the liberal thinking community of philosopher’s. The problem is too much tolerance. There is nothing to salvage in Islam as a religion. The reason is because of Muhammad. When the head of the religion is impeached – the religion must fall. I imagine that is what happened to Zeus and Baal. The culture of Islam has good and bad aspects – like any culture. The religion is bankrupt; the culture will stand or fall on its merits alone.

There is a salient aspect of the Islamic culture which is extent today - the headscarf or hijab in Islamic culture. What does the hijab mean? It means men get to say how women dress. It means women are viewed as sexual objects. It means women are controlled and become the vessel and vehicle of Islamic propagation and domination. There is an Islamic cleric in Brussel’s that has recently said: “Democracy is the train we will ride to domination”. This is a true and disturbing statement. It is partially true because of the hijab. The hijab is part of the culture but comes from the Quran and Ahaditha and the ideas of Muhammad. The hijab is a type of enslavement.

What we need more than ever in society is the participation of women. For the last 5000 years men have dominated civilization. This fact still continues today. Have men done a good job? Not so much. Women are 50% of the human intellect and they are different than men. Women think differently than men and this is a good thing. We are not fully using 50% of our toolbox. This is dumb. Women are here to balance our prospective – not to overpower it – like men do now. We need a partnership in order for human beings to flourish and reach a new horizon. We need to honor women and men alike. This is common sense – not a radical idea.

My goodness, you have an amazingly inflated opinion of how much what we say here matters. In what way are you "on the front lines?" — T Clark

What rules the world? Money – military - politics – religion – movies – art – literature - ? What is common to all these things? Ideas. Ideas rule the world – always have and always will. Ideas breathe life into any institution. Civilization is only an idea. Ideas are our life’s blood. The philosopher's job is paramount and profound - one that is needed now more than ever.

It's ultimately an ideological war — Thorongil

We as philosophers are on the front lines of this war. We are both the generals and foot soldiers in this war. We have an important function to play. Most importantly, we have an obligation to civilization to maintain and advance the dialog of what is right and moral. We must not abdicate or abstain from this job.

How else would you suggest stopping the haemorrhage*? — Agustino

The only way to defeat Islam is to expose the character of Muhammad. Islam cannot be beaten militarily, economically or politically. Those battles are long past – although still pursued in vain. It must be shown that Muhammad is a pedophile (he had sex with a nine year old girl), murderer (he beheaded people), slave dealer (created and sold), illiterate psychopathic and morally bankrupt prophet with a sword? Muhammad is touted as the ideal man. The fact is, he is quite the opposite.

Why would I care which denomination will achieve religious monopoly? I don't even buy into religion. — Noblosh

Because Islam will not permit this forum!

I would like to interject my idea of peak experience. Peak experience is often thought of as the exceptional achievements of athletes, artists, actors, musicians, mystics and even thinkers. However – it is not just them; their extraordinary accomplishments are transmitted to us, the observer, and we join the experience. We cling to any and all peak experience because it is exhilarating. When we see Usain Bolt run; he infects us with his energy and perfection. My father was a big fan of Mario Lanza and I remember recordings of this powerful, beautiful voice lofting through the house when I was little. I have read poetry and prose that has made me cry. I have heard mystics talk like they were inside my head. I have observed myself in silence and it is like another world. Peak experience transports us to a special knowing. It is not one thing – it can be anything – many things – and nothing. I sense a peak experience now – for a nano-second between my breathes – there is something wonderful in my consciousness – I can feel it – but I have a hard time grabbing it – it is so fleeting. I project that we all have it. We all chase it. Why would we not? We listen to great music, theatre, sports and it is magnificent. I am grateful for my peak experiences – it is truly divine.

And within historical context, the atheistic position, bolstered by science, is the fresher, newer view. So the atheistic view is, in a way, pubescent. It has that same awkward certainty to it.

What comes next? What's the university phase of human thought? — Noble Dust

The uncertainty principle never leaves us – no matter what you think or believe. Why are we here? Are we here to convince others of our righteousness? I think we are here to convince ourselves. To find out what we can think. Uncertainty is our motivator – it drives us to purpose. I like it – an old friend.

Sure, there's another singularity at the center, but that one really stretches the typical definitions of existence and again, doesn't seem to have a meaningful value that can be interpreted as temperature. — noAxioms

Ok - you have been there, so I will take your word for it.

that I want to snort and stomp my hooves in the dirt as much as I want to share beautiful thoughts. A certain kind of hatred and suspicion is natural. Maybe we beat it back in the pursuit of this or that goal, but I think we have a tendency to articulate our superiority. — visit0r

A keen insight.

Most classic physical measurements do not have meaning during that first picosecond or so any more than they do beyond the event horizon of a black hole (another singularity). — noAxioms

We have no idea a black hole is a singularity. Maybe it is a big drain hole into another universe? To say a black hole at its core is infinitely dense and hot is weak speculation at best. To suggest that infinite density and temperature ever existed (anywhere or time) is speculation as well. The drain hole sounds more plausible than infinitely dense.

Why are we all so biased?

We are biased because we are alone. We are imprisoned in our little boxes – isolated – solitary confinement. We yearn for company, but we only get a facsimile of it. We laugh, talk and hold hands, but it is not quite a unified experience. Our bias is what we think we are. We want the impossible. We want to be in another’s consciousness and we want to be separate at the same time. Maybe – someday?

The idea of a singularity says no such thing. — noAxioms

Is a singularity a infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past?

This is what makes your argument the most questionable: some things that are ordered are intelligently designed to be so, but very often things which are ordered are not so due to design, but rather thanks to a host of basic contributory factors out of which eventual balances and imbalances have emerged. — VagabondSpectre

I think your arguments are strong. What I would like you to consider is the number “host of basic contributory factors”. It seems like a lot of luck.

I would say every hipotesis is correct, because the singularity is a mathematicaly impossibility. — oranssi

The idea of a singularity is absurd. That everything, essentially, came from nothing – defies all logic. I would like to hear why it is mathematically impossible?

The universe is not clean, it is full of things strewn about and dust. There are directions one cannot see distant stars for all the dirt in the way.
The universe is not well arranged or tidy in any way that a room might be. It is merely clumped much like a room would be after being hit with a flood.
I don't see the argument from order at all. — noAxioms

I think this is a very strong point. We don’t see the universe – our view is limited and myopic. However, just because we can’t see the totality doesn’t mean it is without symmetry. It means we don’t know.

What we do see clearly is the micro universe – the atom, molecule, virus, bacteria, etc. Are these things ordered? They seem to have a method to their madness. My question to myself and others is why?

That's a good reason not to do so. — Sapientia

I would ask you to prove the antithesis, but I know in the end that thesis is speculation too. I have already been there – done that. The difference is that NO-God is really much less satisfying speculation. That is why I prefer the opposite. Plus, I do not feel the need to ridicule you for your speculation – that is also very satisfying.

I find both of you individual's funny. I put forward sound logic; neither of you addressed it. Then you tried to show me order without causation – a feeble attempt and no other examples. And now I see argumentation of ridicule – not logic. So, here is my logic again – please refute it:

Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. There is also a degree of disorder which happens by coincidence. However, order seems to be the dominate principle, but not always. I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe.


How I see order in the universe is through the laws of physics. There is a consistency in “things”. Additionally I see order in our planet. The following factors - distance from the sun, the atmosphere, plenty of water and food, good air to breathe, gravity, etc. These are orderly conditions.

Why speculate at all? — Sapientia

Because that's the best I can do.

No - speculate there is a God.
— Thinker
That's what I meant. Read the whole thing in that light. — noAxioms

I speculate there is a God - I can not prove God.

The second one by no means follows from the first. Cause and effect do not necessarily bring about order. Order can be had without cause and effect. The integers are nice and orderly, all equally spaced and whatnot. No cause and effect made them that way. — noAxioms

I beg to differ – integers are a man-made invention – they do not exist in time and space – only in the mind of man. Show me another example of something that is orderly without causation?

There must be a God making each environment perfect for each thing — noAxioms

No - speculate there is a God.

Are you trolling or...? — Sapientia

No - but you keep resorting to insults - that is trolling - and pompous. Here is my logic again – I would be happy for you to show me the error of my ways – we shall see:

Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. There is also a degree of disorder which happens by coincidence. However, order seems to be the dominate principle, but not always. I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe.

How I see order in the universe is through the laws of physics. There is a consistency in “things”. Additionally I see order in our planet. The following factors - distance from the sun, the atmosphere, plenty of water and food, good air to breathe, gravity, etc. These are orderly conditions.

It's more than mocking. It's a case in point of why having a hypothesis is not in itself good enough grounds for anything other than speculation. — Sapientia

My logic is strong – your rebuttal is not. I beg to differ – a hypothesis is speculation – and that is good enough for me. There is no absolute certainty – I don’t know if I will be here tomorrow – I hope so – I speculate – but that is about it.

And I hypothesise the moon is made of cheese. — Sapientia

I tried to lay out my case logically and you mock me – ok – I can absorb that. However, I do not see a serious argument from you?

Fine, but that doesn't excuse you from evading my two-part question. What does it mean to say that order is a function of cause and effect, and how do you get from your hypothesis to the conclusion that a conscious agency created the universe? Or do you not have any reason to conclude that? — Sapientia

Cause and effect are part of physics. Therefore the laws of physics bring about a degree of order. There is also a degree of disorder which happens by coincidence. However, order seems to be the dominate principle, but not always. I do not conclude a conscious agency created the universe – I hypothesize a conscious agency created the universe.