 So the question is whether randomness, random, the things just move, is a good answer to the question, why do things change? Well again, how is this a coherent answer, right? So we ask, why do things exist? Why do the trees exist? Why do the atoms come together? And it's random. You know, what that amounts to is to say, what brought these trees into existence and the answer is nothing. Parmentities is in the background saying, oh come on, you're telling me nothing brings things together now? Nothing has no causal force, right? It doesn't exist. It can't do anything. Even the way I'm speaking about it in English is incoherent to say nothing causes to exist is itself incoherent. So by the way, this flies in the face of contemporary physics and biology. We will talk about at least four fundamental forces of nature that bring these objects together, strong and weak, nuclear, gravity and electromagnetic. We've got lots of forces. You know, if you're sufficiently ingrained into some biology, maybe you speak about evolutionary forces. The force of history, sometimes we're a little too flippant with the use of the term force. But to simply say nothing does it. That's an incoherent answer. So if you're taking serious the question, what causes to exist? What caused that tree to exist? You say nothing causes it to exist. That's an incoherent answer. Maybe they're doing something else. Maybe they're saying this. All right, so suppose I have a large dice, right? And I roll it down the path here and it comes up too. And I say, why did it come up to? What would you answer me? Well, more than likely say, well, it's random, right? It could have come up to or three or four or five or the chance of it coming up to is one out of six. Just like the chance of it coming up six is one out of six. So there's no real explanation of why it comes up to as opposed to three or four or five or one or whatever. Maybe they're doing something like that. So when I say, why does it come up to? And you say it's random, what you're saying is that's a bad question. There is no why. There is no why, why it comes up to. We see people pulling this, like when did you stop stealing lunches from the fridge? It's like, wait, what? That question, it's a bad question, right? That question has a false assumption. The assumption is there is some point in time in which you stole a lunch. Hopefully, hopefully that's a bad question. If you're stealing lunches from fridges, you're a bad person. Stop doing it. And similarly, if I say, why did it come up to? Well, there is no why. That's a bad question. I mean, maybe the sympathetic democratist could do something like this. Maybe they're trying to, right, why did the tree start to, there is no why. That's a bad question. But it sure seems like it's a good question, right? I mean, if we don't ask that question, if we don't ask why did the tree come to exist, we've abandoned all biology. If we don't ask why the sun rises and sets, I mean, they're going to say nothing. If we don't ask why the sun rises and sets, well, no, we have a why. And it falls gravitation, the gravitational forces, the sun and the earth, and the spin of the earth on its axis, right? Those are really cool here in account of why the sun rises and sets. We don't just say, well, there is no why. If we start doing that, we start saying there is no why for all of this, we've killed any kind of scientific investigation at all because there is no why. So their answer, right, that all this is random, it's not a good answer.