PDA

View Full Version : Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Nietzsche... Neutral ground for Atheist and Theist Discussion



Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 13th, 2017, 01:58 PM
Please explain how "god" dies. Do your best to avoid logical inconsistencies and biblical assertions in your discussion.

Which biblical deity is the real "god", the jealous, vengeful, capricious, murderous one described in the OT or some other?

That's what she believes. I'm not obligated to agree with her just because we're married. People believe some really, really bizarre things. Someone on TOL even believes the Earth is flat.

Brilliant Authors that put God and Humanity on Trial with every word they wrote, existed an age or two ago. Three of these Authors that have remained a cornerstone of discussion and thought are Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Nietzsche.

I am creating this one thread to offer a philosophical evaluation of God and Mankind with one, simple requirement...

The Thread must revolve around the quotes of these 3 authors. Exceptions will obviously be made, but this is a petition to drop posturing and commit to sincere discussion that goes beyond personal stance.

On this one thread, the Atheist and Agnostic must attempt to see through the believers eyes, while the believer must attempt to see through the Atheist and Agnostic's eyes.

A little intellectual juggling will be employed.

I only ask one absolute thing of any who may traverse this thread... the concept of truth cannot be "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty".

As promised...


I'll take a look at your thread. No promises.

I emptied my pm' s of everything. Might help, might not.
You might want to consider a different strategy. What you're doing isn't working toward that end. Ask anyone you've disagreed with on TOL.
Where'd you get the idea I might think you "beneath me"? :shocked:

I made clear my criteria to lop-off comminication. You, like most christians, seem to fancy yourself a mind reader. Don't think you know me, however, I can honestly guess I am probably less complex than you think.
Why should we limit ourselves to what a bunch of dead philosophers think?

I've pissed off my share of mods on various threads because they would rather not have someone point out the inadequacies of their biblical philosophy.

For instance, I've been banned for:

He/she/it is inappropriate when referring to a sexless deity.

Genocide is evil, except when their deity is the culprit.

Sex and having children outside of marriage is a sin, except for Jesus' mother.

Adultery and murdering your adulterous partner's husband is a sin, except when you're "a man after god's own heart".

Invisible and imaginary are forbidden adjectives.

The list goes on...
"We will see" - Conan the barbarian.

:chuckle:

:e4e:

I am responsible for the content of the thread I made and you are protected by my "terrible methods".

There are advantages to discussion with me. I'm willing to go to the end of the earth to protect the topic. I'll Modify my thread by adding this quote to the OP and making it clear that I want to nurture discussion between us that allows for Theist and Atheist / Agnostic perspective.

In other words... it is on topic for either of us to bring the perspective of either side.

:e4e:

Thank you for even considering discussion and forgive me for misunderstanding your stance.

If you welcome it... I will enter discussion with you on the thread discussed as equals, with equal rights to discuss our objections to belief and unbelief.

I essentially worded it that God and Mankind can be on trial in the thread. That's as no holds barred as it gets.

:D

Silent Hunter
June 13th, 2017, 09:45 PM
Please explain how "god" dies. Do your best to avoid logical inconsistencies and biblical assertions in your discussion.

Which biblical deity is the real "god", the jealous, vengeful, capricious, murderous one described in the OT or some other?

That's what she believes. I'm not obligated to agree with her just because we're married. People believe some really, really bizarre things. Someone on TOL even believes the Earth is flat.
Brilliant Authors that put God and Humanity on Trial with every word they wrote, existed an age or two ago. Three of these Authors that have remained a cornerstone of discussion and thought are Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Nietzsche.I'm not as familiar with these dead guy's writings as I'd like, however, they aren't totally alien either.

I am creating this one thread to offer a philosophical evaluation of God and Mankind with one, simple requirement...

The Thread must revolve around the quotes of these 3 authors. Exceptions will obviously be made, but this is a petition to drop posturing and commit to sincere discussion that goes beyond personal stance.Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Nietzsche are far from being the end all on the discussion of "god". It might be of service for the "believer" to answer the initial question:

"Please explain how "god" dies. Do your best to avoid logical inconsistencies and biblical assertions in your discussion.

Which biblical deity is the real "god", the jealous, vengeful, capricious, murderous one described in the OT or some other?"

On this one thread, the Atheist and Agnostic must attempt to see through the believers eyes, while the believer must attempt to see through the Atheist and Agnostic's eyes.Great plan!

A little intellectual juggling will be employed.:juggle:

I only ask one absolute thing of any who may traverse this thread... the concept of truth cannot be "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty".While "what is truth" is a philosophical mountain all its own, I think I understand what you mean. I'm the most honest person you will (probably) never meet.


As promised...

I'll take a look at your thread. No promises.

I emptied my pm' s of everything. Might help, might not.
You might want to consider a different strategy. What you're doing isn't working toward that end. Ask anyone you've disagreed with on TOL.
Where'd you get the idea I might think you "beneath me"? :shocked:

I made clear my criteria to lop-off comminication. You, like most christians, seem to fancy yourself a mind reader. Don't think you know me, however, I can honestly guess I am probably less complex than you think.
Why should we limit ourselves to what a bunch of dead philosophers think?

I've pissed off my share of mods on various threads because they would rather not have someone point out the inadequacies of their biblical philosophy.

For instance, I've been banned for:

He/she/it is inappropriate when referring to a sexless deity.

Genocide is evil, except when their deity is the culprit.

Sex and having children outside of marriage is a sin, except for Jesus' mother.

Adultery and murdering your adulterous partner's husband is a sin, except when you're "a man after god's own heart".

Invisible and imaginary are forbidden adjectives.

The list goes on...
"We will see" - Conan the barbarian.

:chuckle:

:e4e:I am responsible for the content of the thread I made and you are protected by my "terrible methods".

There are advantages to discussion with me. I'm willing to go to the end of the earth to protect the topic. I'll Modify my thread by adding this quote to the OP and making it clear that I want to nurture discussion between us that allows for Theist and Atheist / Agnostic perspective.

In other words... it is on topic for either of us to bring the perspective of either side.

:e4e:

Thank you for even considering discussion and forgive me for misunderstanding your stance.

If you welcome it... I will enter discussion with you on the thread discussed as equals, with equal rights to discuss our objections to belief and unbelief.

I essentially worded it that God and Mankind can be on trial in the thread. That's as no holds barred as it gets.

:DI'm a firm believer in, "No matter what you say, someone will be offended".

My personal opinion is that a few of the mods of TOL are complete jerks in this perspective and I won't mention Sherman by name to protect his/her identity.

Intentional blasphemy has such a nebulous definition on TOL as to be totally worthless in practice (ie no definition at all).

I ask for forgiveness in advance should you or anyone be offended by my characterization of my perception of the christian deity. No offense is meant but I guarantee someone will take offense.

If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 14th, 2017, 11:32 AM
If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.


I'm not as familiar with these dead guy's writings as I'd like, however, they aren't totally alien either.

I'm no scholar on any of them, but they carry a unique collection of ideas that compliment our pursuit here.


Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Nietzsche are far from being the end all on the discussion of "god".

I agree. However, they are collectively a perfect trio to philosophically approach the idea of God being genuine or not. They are all three introspective authors that write with an honesty that is so intense, what they lack against other authors, tends to bring the light back to their words. They also have a way of evaluating mankind's need or lack of need for God and a way of explaining the difference between the possibility of there being a God and the possibility that mankind creates the idea of God.


It might be of service for the "believer" to answer the initial question:

"Please explain how "god" dies. Do your best to avoid logical inconsistencies and biblical assertions in your discussion.

Then I will make a dedicated response to this. It will be my next post to follow this one.


Which biblical deity is the real "god", the jealous, vengeful, capricious, murderous one described in the OT or some other?"
Great plan!
:juggle:

I am grouping this together, because you know that your very question is kind of rigged. However, I will count this question the 2nd question to be directly addressed with a dedicated post, that follows the "god" dies... question.

I will simply say this... evidence must be gathered on a mass scale, even within the scope of the 39 books that Judaeo-Christianity considers the Old Testament. I know the verses well, and I will cite all of them.

I want to stop with my defensiveness though, and show that I am willing to juggle and follow our agreed plan.

I fully understand why you worded the question this way and agree that there is much evidence that would justify its wording.



While "what is truth" is a philosophical mountain all its own, I think I understand what you mean. I'm the most honest person you will (probably) never meet.

I appreciate this and can tell you that I am so honest that I will say that I am dishonest. I admit that the way I would like to be perceived can get in the way of how I express my core thoughts. Perhaps we are two "genuine" people discussing some sincerely complex matters.

This is a very good thing and I am very happy to have this opportunity.


I'm a firm believer in, "No matter what you say, someone will be offended".

I agree


My personal opinion is that a few of the mods of TOL are complete jerks in this perspective and I won't mention Sherman by name to protect his/her identity.

I will simply say this. I am a Jerk of sorts and I am okay with the label. It is imperative that a site like this has strong moderation, or it would descend into utter chaos.

I will also say that I know the many crevices of theology and religion and this is the most genuine and merciful of all of them. What some have in Mercy, they lose in honesty. What some have in honesty, they lose in mercy. ToL has a strong blend of both and and allows for a harsh exchange of heated opinions and ideas, in a genuine way that trumps every other site I have ever been to.

It took me time to figure this out. Sherman has a strong hand, but knows when to swoop in and remind us that we are all guests here.

I won't give you a wishy washy... bs reply to this. I think heavy hands are necessary in all parts of life.


Intentional blasphemy has such a nebulous definition on TOL as to be totally worthless in practice (ie no definition at all).

I can understand this. As someone that isn't savvy with the "belief" thing, in your personal life, it's hard to know where the lines are. I'm fairly certain that you, like me have run into them on more than one occasion.


I ask for forgiveness in advance should you or anyone be offended by my characterization of my perception of the christian deity. No offense is meant but I guarantee someone will take offense.

I agree with this. I can tell that we are loading up for some deep conversation that the weak in faith or lack of faith shouldn't really wade in to. We are forming a desire to converse respectfully that will lead to some intense discussion of serious ideas, beliefs and non beliefs.


If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

I'm liking this and if it's okay with you... I believe this particular quote needs to be at the beginning and end of each post we make. It's just a quick copy and past... thus... it would be fair warning to any that wonder in to this thread.


If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 14th, 2017, 11:43 AM
If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.

The actual Burden of response currently lays on the shoulders of Evil.Eye.<{I}>

The following questions will be answered by Evil.Eye.<{I}> with each question being contained within it's own post.

The two questions to be answered that were posed by Silent Hunter...

"Please explain how "god" dies. Do your best to avoid logical inconsistencies and biblical assertions in your discussion.

Which biblical deity is the real "god", the jealous, vengeful, capricious, murderous one described in the OT or some other?"

I am giving myself until Friday at 4:00 pm to answer these. Is that an acceptable time-frame for you Silent Hunter ?


If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.

Silent Hunter
June 14th, 2017, 12:22 PM
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.


The actual Burden of response currently lays on the shoulders of Evil.Eye.<{I}>

The following questions will be answered by Evil.Eye.<{I}> with each question being contained within it's own post.

The two questions to be answered that were posed by Silent Hunter...

"Please explain how "god" dies. Do your best to avoid logical inconsistencies and biblical assertions in your discussion.

Which biblical deity is the real "god", the jealous, vengeful, capricious, murderous one described in the OT or some other?"

I am giving myself until Friday at 4:00 pm to answer these. Is that an acceptable time-frame for you Silent Hunter ?This is a discussion not a debate.

You can take as long as you deem necessary to formulate a response. I am certain you will be unable to construct an answer devoid of (minimizing) "logical inconsistencies and biblical assertions".

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 14th, 2017, 12:54 PM
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.


This is a discussion not a debate.

Excellent. I regret if I made it look any other way. I wouldn't mind if this discussion is mellow and spans a good amount of time. Patient discussion is the best way.


You can take as long as you deem necessary to formulate a response.

Thank you, and I always express the same... for this thread.


I am certain you will be unable to construct an answer devoid of (minimizing) "logical inconsistencies and biblical assertions".

I appreciate the way your worded this. I can see why you would say this. The discussion challenge is for me to answer this clearly and devoid of (minimizing) "logical" inconsistencies and biblical assertions.

In the meantime... as you await my answers patiently...

Do you believe that there are metaphysical realities that transcend science and natural observation? I mean this in the most general sense. I mean this in a way that will allow me to understand how you perceive the unknown.

SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.

Silent Hunter
June 14th, 2017, 01:19 PM
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.


Excellent. I regret if I made it look any other way. I wouldn't mind if this discussion is mellow and spans a good amount of time. Patient discussion is the best way.

Thank you, and I always express the same... for this thread.:e4e:

Do you believe that there are metaphysical realities that transcend science and natural observation?No.

I can imagine square circles. I have yet to construct one.

I mean this in the most general sense. I mean this in a way that will allow me to understand how you perceive the unknown.Does this correlate to how you might plan for unforseen problems when formulating a course of action? Just wondering? ?

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 14th, 2017, 01:23 PM
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.




No.

I can imagine square circles. I have yet to construct one.
Does this correlate to how you might plan for unforseen problems when formulating a course of action? Just wondering? ?

Not at all. I am only offered with one solution. Expression of the answer from your perspective and mine at the same time.

I have to account for the notation of the "Metaphysical" that you disbelieve in.

Or... then again....
https://media.giphy.com/media/xiHqRHv4bh9Je/giphy.gif

SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.

Silent Hunter
June 14th, 2017, 01:56 PM
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.


:e4e:
No.

I can imagine square circles. I have yet to construct one.
Does this correlate to how you might plan for unforseen problems when formulating a course of action? Just wondering?
Not at all. I am only offered with one solution.What is your proposed solution? Perhaps I'm missing it.

Expression of the answer from your perspective and mine at the same time.?

I have to account for the notation of the "Metaphysical" that you disbelieve in.Yes you do. What is the metaphysical to you?

Or... then again....
https://media.giphy.com/media/xiHqRHv4bh9Je/giphy.gifDo you claim this to be evidence of something "metaphysical"?

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 14th, 2017, 03:15 PM
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.


What is your proposed solution? Perhaps I'm missing it.

I have decided to listen and discuss this matter with you before I rush in and answer the first question. How can I communicate an answer to you that is reasonably plausible from your perspective, if I simply regurgitate my understanding? Ears serve as much better aids to discussion than a mouth. I am considering this discussion on the "metaphysical" as key to any relevant answer... from your perspective.


Yes you do. What is the metaphysical to you?

Dark Matter is an excellent example of something that is indicated to be present, but isn't scientifically measurable, except for it's noted mathematical need in complex, astro-physics equations.

Another example of "Metaphysical" is the "soul". The movie "Ghost in the Shell" addresses that there is a part of us that makes us "who we are". It is beyond our very "matter" and it isn't scientifically "observable". We can look at impulses and brain structure, but even "twins" that seem to be identical genetically, have unique differences in their "Being".

Perhaps another example of "MetaPhysics" would be this image...http://www.magiceye.com/client/images/eye.jpg

The image is rendered with the aid of "computers", but we can "see" that there is a hidden image in this image that can only be "observed" when the image is "perceived" properly.

Is the image, within the image there? Or is it simply perceived within the "mind's eye"?

The Wind can be observed with measuring devices, but it can't be seen. There are many things that we can exemplify as intangible, but in the end... it comes down to scientific method and the very question... Just because something can't be "observed", does that mean it doesn't exist?

An Idea is extremely metaphysical. It can be observed as an electrical impulse, word of any language, picture, movie, sound, song, lyric, structure or anything... but the very "idea" itself is intangible.

Ideas can topple empires and construct them.

Love is extremely "metaphysical". It can be observed in "some ways", but it is completely in-observable in others.


Do you claim this to be evidence of something "metaphysical"?

No. Infact, the very word "metaphysical" is a word for something that is enormously pondered and possible, but has no concrete "physical" evidence to prove it.

The very concept of the metaphysical is the existence of things that exist, but cannot be observed from the perspective of the "Tangible" universe.

Time is extremely MetaPhysical. We can "create a measure for it" and "observe the passage of it", but we cannot observe the "concept" of time itself. It is a word for something we can "measure" but not "see".

Does time exist?

The question I desire to throw back your direction is this... does something have to be "Physical" to "Exist"? More specifically, does everything that "exists" have to be "quantifiable"?

To drive this home... I am assuming that you understand "faith" is enormously metaPhysical, and yet founded on repetitious evidence.

A solid question to ask you would be if you have faith in your wife's commitment to your marriage. You don't have to answer this question, but you can see the logistical issues to "denying that you have faith" in your wife's commitment to your marriage, simply because it is a relational and experientialy built "substance" within you.

SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.

Silent Hunter
June 14th, 2017, 10:22 PM
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.


What is your proposed solution? Perhaps I'm missing it.
?
Yes you do. What is the metaphysical to you?
Do you claim this to be evidence of something "metaphysical"?

I have decided to listen and discuss this matter with you before I rush in and answer the first question. How can I communicate an answer to you that is reasonably plausible from your perspective, if I simply regurgitate my understanding? Ears serve as much better aids to discussion than a mouth. I am considering this discussion on the "metaphysical" as key to any relevant answer... from your perspective.Sounds fair but I think you're going to run into more than a few difficulties along the way, despite your attempt at gaining a sneak preview of any potential rebuttal, just the same.

Dark Matter is an excellent example of something that is indicated to be present, but isn't scientifically measurable, except for it's noted mathematical need in complex, astro-physics equations."Dark matter" is a (scientific) theory fitting the available evidence. There's nothing metaphysical about it. Dark matter may have the same outcome as the "ether" thought to propagate light or it may find physical support the same way Einstein's theory did in how gravity affects light. Either way, the jury is still out. Don't be so hasty.

Another example of "Metaphysical" is the "soul". The movie "Ghost in the Shell" addresses that there is a part of us that makes us "who we are". It is beyond our very "matter" and it isn't scientifically "observable". We can look at impulses and brain structure, but even "twins" that seem to be identical genetically, have unique differences in their "Being".Nice speculation but having no foundation in fact. Evidence suggests that "who we are" is determined by chemistry, psychoactive drugs are a notable example.

Perhaps another example of "MetaPhysics" would be this image...http://www.magiceye.com/client/images/eye.jpg

The image is rendered with the aid of "computers", but we can "see" that there is a hidden image in this image that can only be "observed" when the image is "perceived" properly.

Is the image, within the image there? Or is it simply perceived within the "mind's eye"?Optical illusions exist in reality (see your example above), that the image (usually) must be viewed from a particular angle to see the effect doesn't negate its existence otherwise. Does the far side of the Moon not exist because we can't see it?

The Wind can be observed with measuring devices, but it can't be seen. There are many things that we can exemplify as intangible, but in the end... it comes down to scientific method and the very question... Just because something can't be "observed", does that mean it doesn't exist?Worst example ever. Something tangible doesn't exist because it can't be seen? Really? Tell that one to a blind man.

An Idea is extremely metaphysical. It can be observed as an electrical impulse, word of any language, picture, movie, sound, song, lyric, structure or anything... but the very "idea" itself is intangible.

Ideas can topple empires and construct them.This is a better attempt than your last except in order for an idea to "topple empires" it must be put into action, ergo, exist in reality, square circles or no.

Love is extremely "metaphysical". It can be observed in "some ways", but it is completely in-observable in others.Is it? Do I love my wife? Sure. Can I prove it? Sure, by my actions.

No. Infact, the very word "metaphysical" is a word for something that is enormously pondered and possible, but has no concrete "physical" evidence to prove it.Like square circles? No?

The very concept of the metaphysical is the existence of things that exist, but cannot be observed from the perspective of the "Tangible" universe.You just proved the far side of the Moon is metaphysical. Good job!

Time is extremely MetaPhysical. We can "create a measure for it" and "observe the passage of it", but we cannot observe the "concept" of time itself. It is a word for something we can "measure" but not "see".

Does time exist?Sure it does. Anything that can be measured and quantified exists. Time is measured as a function of many quantifiable measures, the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun, the frequency of the oscillation of a quartz crystal, etc.

Playing with words isn't helping you.

The question I desire to throw back your direction is this... does something have to be "Physical" to "Exist"? More specifically, does everything that "exists" have to be "quantifiable"?Nothing you have proposed (so far) counters a, "Yes", answer to this question.

To drive this home... I am assuming that you understand "faith" is enormously metaPhysical, and yet founded on repetitious evidence.I understand from the "biblical record" that Jesus quantified "faith", G Matthew I think.

A solid question to ask you would be if you have faith in your wife's commitment to your marriage. You don't have to answer this question, but you can see the logistical issues to "denying that you have faith" in your wife's commitment to your marriage, simply because it is a relational and experientialy built "substance" within you.I set off a chemical cascade in her brain by my words and actions. How that makes her "feel", while subjectively quantifiable, is certainly a real experience, is it not?

1Mind1Spirit
June 14th, 2017, 11:02 PM
Perhaps happenstance might be a better approach than meta physics?

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 15th, 2017, 08:36 AM
Perhaps happenstance might be a better approach than meta physics?

Meta-Physics is a word that acquiesces to Silent Hunter's perspective.

It means the following... "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality."

To start from Happenstance negates "Philosophy" and immediately jumps into the "brute" debate that is known so well. Instead of fighting one another, we are discussing and respecting, without jumping to "happenstance". The Who Done it argument is known by both Believers and the most staunch of Non-Believers, alike...

Ergo... discussions like the following...

View 1:59 to 4:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

I'll put it this way... Is it funny if I "punch a blind man" that is also "deaf"?

To SH, I am "Blind and Deaf" to "Science"...

To me, SH is "Blind and Deaf" to "God"...

It is basically like the following "poem"...I will live my life according to these beliefs

God does not exist

It is just foolish to think

That there is an all knowing God with a cosmic plan.

That an all powerful God brings purpose to the pain and suffering in the world

is a comforting thought, however

It

Is only wishful thinking

There is no God and there is nothing after death

The idea that

I am deserving of judgment

Becuse of sin,

Is a lie, meant to make me a slave to those in power

"This is all there is and I have no grand origin."

For the Believer

Life is an endless circle of guilt and shame

Without God

Everything is fine

It is ridiculous to think

I am "lost" and in need of "saving"

But then again, we are different, you and I, in an "unseen" way. I claim to have a changed heart and eyes that see things in a way that suggests Christ opened my "Eyes" and Showed me another "perspective".

If you wonder how I see things, read this line-by-line, "Backwards".

JudgeRightly
June 15th, 2017, 08:44 AM
Meta-Physics is a word that acquiesces to Silent Hunter's perspective.

It means the following... "the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality."

To start from Happenstance negates "Philosophy" and immediately jumps into the "brute" debate that is known so well. Instead of fighting one another, we are discussing and respecting, without jumping to "happenstance". The Who Done it argument is known by both Believers and the most staunch of Non-Believers, alike...

Ergo... discussions like the following...

View 1:59 to 4:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

I'll put it this way... Is it funny if I "punch a blind man" that is also "deaf"?

To SH, I am "Blind and Deaf" to "Science"...

To me, SH is "Blind and Deaf" to "God"...

It is basically like the following "poem"...I will live my life according to these beliefs

God does not exist

It is just foolish to think

That there is an all knowing God with a cosmic plan.

That an all powerful God brings purpose to the pain and suffering in the world

is a comforting thought, however

It

Is only wishful thinking

There is no God and there is nothing after death

The idea that

I am deserving of judgment

Becuse of sin,

Is a lie, meant to make me a slave to those in power

"This is all there is and that I have no grand origin."

Our existence has no grand meaning or purpose

In a world with no God

Life is an endless circle of guilt and shame

Without God

Everything is fine

It is ridiculous to think

I am "lost" and in need of "saving"

But then again, we are different, you and I, in an "unseen" way. I claim to have a changed heart and eyes that see things in a way that suggests Christ opened my "Eyes" and Showed me another "perspective".

If you wonder how I see things, read this line-by-line, "Backwards".
That was a great movie, btw...

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 15th, 2017, 09:05 AM
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.


I have decided to listen and discuss this matter with you before I rush in and answer the first question. How can I communicate an answer to you that is reasonably plausible from your perspective, if I simply regurgitate my understanding? Ears serve as much better aids to discussion than a mouth. I am considering this discussion on the "metaphysical" as key to any relevant answer... from your perspective.

Sounds fair but I think you're going to run into more than a few difficulties along the way, despite your attempt at gaining a sneak preview of any potential rebuttal, just the same.

Fortunately…


This is a discussion not a debate
and I would count nothing as a rebuttal, but merely a failed communication on my part, and an educational reply towards me on your part that assists our discussion further.


"Dark matter" is a (scientific) theory fitting the available evidence. There's nothing metaphysical about it. Dark matter may have the same outcome as the "ether" thought to propagate light or it may find physical support the same way Einstein's theory did in how gravity affects light. Either way, the jury is still out. Don't be so hasty.

Do you believe “Dark matter” exists? What do the “chemicals” that make up your “physical” response lean towards… yes or no?


Nice speculation but having no foundation in fact. Evidence suggests that "who we are" is determined by chemistry, psychoactive drugs are a notable example.

What a “metaphysical” type, like me, considers “the soul” is then recognized as human chemical composition and response by yourself?

Along these lines, what is the difference between “Brain Death” of a person who has been dead for an abundant amount of “time”, and a person who codes and reads “clinically dead” for a short time, then comes back to life and has fully restored “existence”?

Could I “reanimate” a corpse, medically that has been dead for longer than 5 hours in warm conditions and expect to go out for a steak dinner with that person, while enjoying a conversation with them that defines who their “chemical composition and response” is?

Also, can we say that these “chemical compositions” and “responses” as they occur from “life” to “death” within a single person, are as unique as “finger prints”?

On this note, would you agree that (on a very crude level) I could factually say that there are three elements that make up a life? I know that you have much better explanations, but I am seeking your affirmation on a common ground of discussion.

1) Physical uniformity of biological structure (Single Cell or Multi-Cellular)

2) Chemical Response to Environment that is unique to an “individual human being” in the way I suggested in the previous paragraph, that is as unique as a “finger print”.

3) Electrical Impulse that perpetuates function/existence


Optical illusions exist in reality (see your example above), that the image (usually) must be viewed from a particular angle to see the effect doesn't negate its existence otherwise. Does the far side of the Moon not exist because we can't see it?

I am glad that you agree that the “angle” of perception is an integral part of perceiving the existence of all things within “reality”.

Indeed, can we agree that Galileo Galilei hadn’t seen the “”Dark Side of the Moon” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBamIi0tIRg) in his lifetime, and although the “Flat Earth” theory was predominant at the time, he had evidence of things “unseen”?


Worst example ever. Something tangible doesn't exist because it can't be seen? Really? Tell that one to a blind man.

I’m so glad we agree on this single matter, thus far.


An Idea is extremely metaphysical. It can be observed as an electrical impulse, word of any language, picture, movie, sound, song, lyric, structure or anything... but the very "idea" itself is intangible.

Ideas can topple empires and construct them.

This is a better attempt than your last except in order for an idea to "topple empires" it must be put into action, ergo, exist in reality, square circles or no.

I appreciate that this idea is more “tangible”, in relationship to the “intangible”. As far as the “idea” being “put into action”, ergo, existing in reality… I fear an “existential” crisis in this “idea”. Ergo, are you suggesting that the idea wasn’t “real” until it was “put into action”?

Wouldn’t the “idea” of “chemicals and electrical impulses” that form the “idea” make it very real according to the wise man that wrote this?


I set off a chemical cascade in her brain by my words and actions. How that makes her "feel", while subjectively quantifiable, is certainly a real experience, is it not?

In fact, philosophically speaking, an idea is formed in very unseen ways. What electrical impulses and chemicals that carry this “idea” in a mind, are somewhat negated by the fact that two people in two completely different hemispheres of the “globe” can claim the identical “idea”, from completely different stimuli. This seems to establish that the “idea” is very “real” before it is even “chemically” conceived. It existed before it was conceived or perceived and only is fully tangible when it is “put into action”. Is this logic sound, or do you “see” it as “square circles”?


Is it? Do I love my wife? Sure. Can I prove it? Sure, by my actions.

I fully agree with your logic here. Proof, or "intellectual DNA (Metaphorically speaking)" can be established for the “unseen” by “actions”, “reactions” and “results”. Along these lines, would you say that the “existence” of Cuneiform writing establishes proof that a person existed that had that “idea” and “put it into action”?


No. In fact, the very word "metaphysical" is a word for something that is enormously pondered and possible, but has no concrete "physical" evidence to prove it.

Like square circles? No?

At this point, I have to say no. You yourself agree that a blind man’s lack of perception, doesn’t negate what can’t be perceived. This was what I was “looking” for in our discussion to come from your mind. You have now acknowledged something that is a scientific fact.

“A” cannot be negated as “non-existent” if “B” “Perception, Sensory Requirement” is unavailable. In other words, what can’t be “quantified” isn’t “non-existent”, but merely un-quantifiable, due to a lack of available “Data” or “Sensory Tools”.


You just proved the far side of the Moon is metaphysical. Good job!

Now, now, I can’t take all the credit. Your “blind man” example is exactly what I needed to take this point to the next level. What is “quantifiable” in “imagination” is far from “non-existent”. If there is “quantifiable evidence” that is perceived as a “lack of data”, surrounded by “data” that points to the “lack of data”, then there is no doubt that there is most likely a “Dark Matter” of sorts to be found there. Savvy?

I would like to make one more tie in to this. If I try to assess the Athletic prowess of an Olympic Swimmer with a 10 K run, or the Intellect of a genius with a bench press competition, I will fail to find a “Truth” that is “evident”, but “possibly unproven”. Can I assess the beauty of a painting by measuring the canvases tensile strength?

Bear with me on this, to find difficult answers, sometimes unorthodox measures must be asserted towards the traditionally “orthodox”. No?


Sure it does. Anything that can be measured and quantified exists. Time is measured as a function of many quantifiable measures, the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun, the frequency of the oscillation of a quartz crystal, etc.

So in parallel words, in reference to “time”, the Result, though sometimes… the origin is “intangible”, can be quantified by the evidentiary presence of quantifiable data that points towards an origin?


Playing with words isn't helping you.

Touché. And then again, I would say that playing with “facts” isn’t helping you either. Not that I am misusing “words”, or that you are misusing “facts”, but that the direction of the conversation seems to be coming along quite beautifully. Yes?


I understand from the "biblical record" that Jesus quantified "faith", G Matthew I think.

I will only say this. The “biblical record” is rejected by you, thus it is a fruitless issue to discuss here and it would be a waste of our time. I can say that the “Great Isaiah Scroll” pre-dates the historical presence of the man that is historically recorded as Jesus and binds to much speculation about "who he was"... from the "anthropological" perspective. You are aware that despite the nay saying, that the "man" known as Jesus is Anthropologically provable by so many scholars that are unbelievers that it is irrefutable that "the man existed", aren’t you? What I am saying is that it is completely fallacious and deceptive to say that the man that is “known as Jesus” didn’t exist. This is a side track that is somewhat related to our discussion, but outside of the direction and flow that we are collectively headed towards.


I set off a chemical cascade in her brain by my words and actions. How that makes her "feel", while subjectively quantifiable, is certainly a real experience, is it not?

What is especially wonderful about your words here are that they have deep “Spiritual”, “Philosophical” and “MetaPhysical” implications, once they are coupled with the fact that you don’t have to be present, or your wife present for you either, for you to illicit those “subjectively quantifiable” chemical cascades. No?

SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 15th, 2017, 09:14 AM
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." - Leo Tolstoy

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 15th, 2017, 09:28 AM
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Frederik Nietze

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 15th, 2017, 09:30 AM
"To live without Hope is to Cease to live." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

1Mind1Spirit
June 15th, 2017, 01:59 PM
In fact, philosophically speaking, an idea is formed in very unseen ways. What electrical impulses and chemicals that carry this “idea” in a mind, are somewhat negated by the fact that two people in two completely different hemispheres of the “globe” can claim the identical “idea”, from completely different stimuli. This seems to establish that the “idea” is very “real” before it is even “chemically” conceived. It existed before it was conceived or perceived and only is fully tangible when it is “put into action”. Is this logic sound, or do you “see” it as “square circles”?



I fully agree with your logic here. Proof, or "intellectual DNA (Metaphorically speaking)" can be established for the “unseen” by “actions”, “reactions” and “results”. Along these lines, would you say that the “existence” of Cuneiform writing establishes proof that a person existed that had that “idea” and “put it into action”?

Happenstance being augmented to substantiate metaphysics? :juggle: :)

1Mind1Spirit
June 15th, 2017, 02:04 PM
I'll put it this way... Is it funny if I "punch a blind man" that is also "deaf"?



Wasn't suggesting you punch anyone.

I also understand why you are working backwards. ;)

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 15th, 2017, 02:11 PM
Happenstance being augmented to substantiate metaphysics? :juggle: :)

There will always be :juggle: where two, diametrically apposing perspectives are in discussion, if positive conversation is to occur.

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 15th, 2017, 02:12 PM
Wasn't suggesting you punch anyone.

I'm just relieved you didn't say that punching a "blind and deaf" person is funny. Although, it does sound like something out of a spoof movie.
https://youtu.be/5pXFo14Ea28

1Mind1Spirit
June 15th, 2017, 02:21 PM
I'm just relieved you didn't say that punching a "blind and deaf" person is funny. Although, it does sound like something out of a spoof movie.https://youtu.be/5pXFo14Ea28

I edited that last post before I saw your last two. :)

Gotta admit the upside down dude in yer spoiler was a little funny.

1Mind1Spirit
June 15th, 2017, 02:34 PM
There will always be :juggle: where two, diametrically apposing perspectives are in discussion, if positive conversation is to occur.

Learned a new word, thanks for expanding my vocabulary.

ap·pose
[əˈpōz]

VERB
place (something) in proximity to or juxtaposition with something else:
"the specimen was apposed to X-ray film"

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 15th, 2017, 02:49 PM
Learned a new word, thanks for expanding my vocabulary.

ap·pose
[əˈpōz]

VERB
place (something) in proximity to or juxtaposition with something else:
"the specimen was apposed to X-ray film"

Some say we "stop learning" when we die, but I'm the crazy sort that believes that death is the doorway to knowledge we cannot fathom. :)

And... you've taught me a thing or two as well.

:e4e:

1Mind1Spirit
June 15th, 2017, 02:58 PM
Some say we "stop learning" when we die, but I'm the crazy sort that believes that death is the doorway to knowledge we cannot fathom. :)



:cheers:

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 16th, 2017, 01:07 PM
Thread update...

This is a simple discussion. Silent Hunter asked two enormously relevant questions about the possibility of God dying and His character. Initially, I offered to answer these questions with a debate response, but Silent Hunter rejected this and reminded me that we are having a conversation.

Since that makes things simpler for both of us and allows for diverse communication, I have decided to communicate at length with Silent Hunter before I answer his excellent questions.

I have responded in suit to Silent Hunter's excellent response and currently, at Silent Hunter's absolute leisure and without timeframe, he has my response to process and respond to.

Link Here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?125614-Dostoevsky-Tolstoy-and-Nietzsche-Neutral-ground-for-Atheist-and-Theist-Discussion&p=5043261&viewfull=1#post5043261)

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 28th, 2017, 03:18 PM
SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.


I have decided to listen and discuss this matter with you before I rush in and answer the first question. How can I communicate an answer to you that is reasonably plausible from your perspective, if I simply regurgitate my understanding? Ears serve as much better aids to discussion than a mouth. I am considering this discussion on the "metaphysical" as key to any relevant answer... from your perspective.

Sounds fair but I think you're going to run into more than a few difficulties along the way, despite your attempt at gaining a sneak preview of any potential rebuttal, just the same.

Fortunately…


This is a discussion not a debate
and I would count nothing as a rebuttal, but merely a failed communication on my part, and an educational reply towards me on your part that assists our discussion further.


"Dark matter" is a (scientific) theory fitting the available evidence. There's nothing metaphysical about it. Dark matter may have the same outcome as the "ether" thought to propagate light or it may find physical support the same way Einstein's theory did in how gravity affects light. Either way, the jury is still out. Don't be so hasty.

Do you believe “Dark matter” exists? What do the “chemicals” that make up your “physical” response lean towards… yes or no?


Nice speculation but having no foundation in fact. Evidence suggests that "who we are" is determined by chemistry, psychoactive drugs are a notable example.

What a “metaphysical” type, like me, considers “the soul” is then recognized as human chemical composition and response by yourself?

Along these lines, what is the difference between “Brain Death” of a person who has been dead for an abundant amount of “time”, and a person who codes and reads “clinically dead” for a short time, then comes back to life and has fully restored “existence”?

Could I “reanimate” a corpse, medically that has been dead for longer than 5 hours in warm conditions and expect to go out for a steak dinner with that person, while enjoying a conversation with them that defines who their “chemical composition and response” is?

Also, can we say that these “chemical compositions” and “responses” as they occur from “life” to “death” within a single person, are as unique as “finger prints”?

On this note, would you agree that (on a very crude level) I could factually say that there are three elements that make up a life? I know that you have much better explanations, but I am seeking your affirmation on a common ground of discussion.

1) Physical uniformity of biological structure (Single Cell or Multi-Cellular)

2) Chemical Response to Environment that is unique to an “individual human being” in the way I suggested in the previous paragraph, that is as unique as a “finger print”.

3) Electrical Impulse that perpetuates function/existence


Optical illusions exist in reality (see your example above), that the image (usually) must be viewed from a particular angle to see the effect doesn't negate its existence otherwise. Does the far side of the Moon not exist because we can't see it?

I am glad that you agree that the “angle” of perception is an integral part of perceiving the existence of all things within “reality”.

Indeed, can we agree that Galileo Galilei hadn’t seen the “”Dark Side of the Moon” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBamIi0tIRg) in his lifetime, and although the “Flat Earth” theory was predominant at the time, he had evidence of things “unseen”?


Worst example ever. Something tangible doesn't exist because it can't be seen? Really? Tell that one to a blind man.

I’m so glad we agree on this single matter, thus far.


An Idea is extremely metaphysical. It can be observed as an electrical impulse, word of any language, picture, movie, sound, song, lyric, structure or anything... but the very "idea" itself is intangible.

Ideas can topple empires and construct them.

This is a better attempt than your last except in order for an idea to "topple empires" it must be put into action, ergo, exist in reality, square circles or no.

I appreciate that this idea is more “tangible”, in relationship to the “intangible”. As far as the “idea” being “put into action”, ergo, existing in reality… I fear an “existential” crisis in this “idea”. Ergo, are you suggesting that the idea wasn’t “real” until it was “put into action”?

Wouldn’t the “idea” of “chemicals and electrical impulses” that form the “idea” make it very real according to the wise man that wrote this?


I set off a chemical cascade in her brain by my words and actions. How that makes her "feel", while subjectively quantifiable, is certainly a real experience, is it not?

In fact, philosophically speaking, an idea is formed in very unseen ways. What electrical impulses and chemicals that carry this “idea” in a mind, are somewhat negated by the fact that two people in two completely different hemispheres of the “globe” can claim the identical “idea”, from completely different stimuli. This seems to establish that the “idea” is very “real” before it is even “chemically” conceived. It existed before it was conceived or perceived and only is fully tangible when it is “put into action”. Is this logic sound, or do you “see” it as “square circles”?


Is it? Do I love my wife? Sure. Can I prove it? Sure, by my actions.

I fully agree with your logic here. Proof, or "intellectual DNA (Metaphorically speaking)" can be established for the “unseen” by “actions”, “reactions” and “results”. Along these lines, would you say that the “existence” of Cuneiform writing establishes proof that a person existed that had that “idea” and “put it into action”?


No. In fact, the very word "metaphysical" is a word for something that is enormously pondered and possible, but has no concrete "physical" evidence to prove it.

Like square circles? No?

At this point, I have to say no. You yourself agree that a blind man’s lack of perception, doesn’t negate what can’t be perceived. This was what I was “looking” for in our discussion to come from your mind. You have now acknowledged something that is a scientific fact.

“A” cannot be negated as “non-existent” if “B” “Perception, Sensory Requirement” is unavailable. In other words, what can’t be “quantified” isn’t “non-existent”, but merely un-quantifiable, due to a lack of available “Data” or “Sensory Tools”.


You just proved the far side of the Moon is metaphysical. Good job!

Now, now, I can’t take all the credit. Your “blind man” example is exactly what I needed to take this point to the next level. What is “quantifiable” in “imagination” is far from “non-existent”. If there is “quantifiable evidence” that is perceived as a “lack of data”, surrounded by “data” that points to the “lack of data”, then there is no doubt that there is most likely a “Dark Matter” of sorts to be found there. Savvy?

I would like to make one more tie in to this. If I try to assess the Athletic prowess of an Olympic Swimmer with a 10 K run, or the Intellect of a genius with a bench press competition, I will fail to find a “Truth” that is “evident”, but “possibly unproven”. Can I assess the beauty of a painting by measuring the canvases tensile strength?

Bear with me on this, to find difficult answers, sometimes unorthodox measures must be asserted towards the traditionally “orthodox”. No?


Sure it does. Anything that can be measured and quantified exists. Time is measured as a function of many quantifiable measures, the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, the Earth around the Sun, the frequency of the oscillation of a quartz crystal, etc.

So in parallel words, in reference to “time”, the Result, though sometimes… the origin is “intangible”, can be quantified by the evidentiary presence of quantifiable data that points towards an origin?


Playing with words isn't helping you.

Touché. And then again, I would say that playing with “facts” isn’t helping you either. Not that I am misusing “words”, or that you are misusing “facts”, but that the direction of the conversation seems to be coming along quite beautifully. Yes?


I understand from the "biblical record" that Jesus quantified "faith", G Matthew I think.

I will only say this. The “biblical record” is rejected by you, thus it is a fruitless issue to discuss here and it would be a waste of our time. I can say that the “Great Isaiah Scroll” pre-dates the historical presence of the man that is historically recorded as Jesus and binds to much speculation about "who he was"... from the "anthropological" perspective. You are aware that despite the nay saying, that the "man" known as Jesus is Anthropologically provable by so many scholars that are unbelievers that it is irrefutable that "the man existed", aren’t you? What I am saying is that it is completely fallacious and deceptive to say that the man that is “known as Jesus” didn’t exist. This is a side track that is somewhat related to our discussion, but outside of the direction and flow that we are collectively headed towards.


I set off a chemical cascade in her brain by my words and actions. How that makes her "feel", while subjectively quantifiable, is certainly a real experience, is it not?

What is especially wonderful about your words here are that they have deep “Spiritual”, “Philosophical” and “MetaPhysical” implications, once they are coupled with the fact that you don’t have to be present, or your wife present for you either, for you to illicit those “subjectively quantifiable” chemical cascades. No?

SH: If the reader cannot accept "truth IS "relative" in the matter of personal "honesty" they should find another thread to follow.

EE: Truth is never "relative" in the staunchest definition of the final mechanics of all that exists, but in discussion, every person expresses from their heart and mind in sincerity, though one person's sincerity may be perceived as another person's lie.

Just re dropping this post. Hope all is well.