Do you believe in God?

[Recon]

1. Still doesn't answer the question. Even if there is a multiverse, there still is a watch that needs a watchmaker.

2. I suppose I must think differently compared to others. A brief overview of the stability needed for both our and the universe's existence (as we know it) is absolutely stunning. I've tried that before though, and it seems that the improbability of such perfect conditions is not accepted by the atheist in this argument. I'm attempting a different approach. We both have different hypothesis. I believe that a greater power made the material world - supernatural if you like. You think that the universe can be explained through natural processes.
I'm going to attempt to explain this 'infinite regress' I was talking about. Firstly, what caused the big bang? Then what caused that? Then what caused that? And so on for infinity. Think of it like dividing a piece of paper in half. I cut it in 1/2, then 1/4, then 1/8, and so on. There must be a point where the peice of paper cannot be divised any more.
So when we put a nail on this infinite regress, we ask what it is and why is it in existence (or how). My explanation is God. A non-material, omnipresent being that lies outside the realms of time. I can see no other explanation. We both have limited knowledge, along with everyone else in this discussion. Could one use their limited store of knowledge to exclude the possibility of a deity?

On your last note: I am not here to stand up for the religions of the world, but rather to stick up for my own personal beliefs. I agree that we are insignificant in the universe, but obviously I disagree with that last statement. I would like to say that my belief in God has encouraged me to study the beauty of the universe which he has made. Many scientists have strived for understanding purely because they were Christian and wanted to understand and marvel the work God has made. This has no evidence for the existence of a God, but it shows that a belief in a deity does not always slow down the progress of scientists.

Quite simpily, the way I see it is: God is perfect, and therefore exists.

Obviously you can discard that statement in an argument, but after some deep thinking (which I will continue to do), it makes sense to me.

Well lets go back to that reference to the paper; the paper itself may get to a point where its indivisible, but there may be an infinite string of knowledge that keeps going and going. But for that chain we will hope to get to a point where we don't have to keep going. Take pi for example. We know it keeps on going but we cut it off at 3.14. Just like pi this chain of knowledge will keep going but this ones different because something needs to be at the center. And I know this didn't explain much but I'll finish off with my bold statement: Christianity and all monotheism is just a placeholder while we slowly inch forward towards the real answer. Both sides will see whats in the middle of it all in time, or we will come to a satisfying conclusion. All in due time.

 

[dylansan]

Just because you can't imagine the universe beginning without a God, doesn't mean there's any reason to think it had to be created. I can't imagine time slowing down when I approach the speed of light, but I know that's what happens.

 

[Recon]

I like this video, but at the same time its very self-contradictory. It addresses how we use god to fill in the gaps of human knowledge. And just like in this arguement, it talked about The Big Bang being very hard to study and observe so Christianity uses it as a last resort and as a reason to question the origin of everything out of our reach.

 

[niky]

1. Still doesn't answer the question. Even if there is a multiverse, there still is a watch that needs a watchmaker.

The Universe isn't a watch. In fact, far from it.

The asymmetry and imbalance of the Universe are not as aesthetically pleasing as they could be. If it's a watch, it's one that's crusted over, rusted in places, has gears too big in some movements and too small in others. The miracle is that it works in spite of itself.

And, of course... if it were a watch, we're still looking for the watchmaker's logo. No fifty foot high letters of flame in the Qualzgar mountains have been found. No angels coming down from heaven at the end of the first millenium, or the second, or... No perfect circles enscribed in Base 11 inside the numeral pi, either. At least, not yet.

2. I suppose I must think differently compared to others. A brief overview of the stability needed for both our and the universe's existence (as we know it) is absolutely stunning. I've tried that before though, and it seems that the improbability of such perfect conditions is not accepted by the atheist in this argument. I'm attempting a different approach. We both have different hypothesis. I believe that a greater power made the material world - supernatural if you like. You think that the universe can be explained through natural processes.

The sheer improbability of something that has happened happening? The probability of all existence occuring is still 1. Even if there's a 1 in infinity chance of the Universe ever coming about with the right mix of physical laws to eventually lead to us, given an infinite amount of chances of it occuring, it must eventually occur.

The Universe can be explained through natural processes, simply because, however complex those natural processes are, they exist and they are self-regulating.

Perhaps you think this Universe is perfect. I do not. A Universe that must eventually die a slow, cold death, as the last ancient black holes evaporate and protons decay into nothingness... instead of eternally expanding with the creation of new stars and galaxies isn't a very nice Universe to live in.

I'm going to attempt to explain this 'infinite regress' I was talking about. Firstly, what caused the big bang? Then what caused that? Then what caused that? And so on for infinity. Think of it like dividing a piece of paper in half. I cut it in 1/2, then 1/4, then 1/8, and so on. There must be a point where the peice of paper cannot be divised any more.

Science has not declared that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Just as it does not declare that you can't divide quarks. It simply states that this is the limit of our observation, and beyond that limit, we cannot guess or conjecture what is beyond that.

So when we put a nail on this infinite regress, we ask what it is and why is it in existence (or how). My explanation is God. A non-material, omnipresent being that lies outside the realms of time. I can see no other explanation. We both have limited knowledge, along with everyone else in this discussion. Could one use their limited store of knowledge to exclude the possibility of a deity?

Can one with an admittedly even more limitedd store of knowledge possibly decide that they know the Face of God? Is God a "he", a "she" or an "it"? Is God a single person or a collective consciousness? Is God a computer? Did God create us whole out of a darkling cloth, or are we simply manifestations of the the Godhead Rama? Are we God, somehow creating the Universe we live in?

Stating: "God did it." is like pointing at an incomplete map of the world and stating: "Here there be dragons." Once you've expanded your pool of knowledge, you have to rewrite the map.

Science is simply not writing the map without having evidence for the shape of it. The best we can do is make predictions about the shape based on sophisticated mathematics. Sometimes those predictions don't work out, but other times, with predictions by the likes of Einstein or Hawking, they do. And then we find out that those predictions are slightly off, so we revise them.

Science is not "guessing". It doesn't put "Here there be Dragons" in every dark corner of our lack of knowledge, and sit back, content to leave that corner unexplored.

Eventually, one day, we will find those Dragons that dream reality, or Gods, or Devas, or Demons*, or Engineers. Then we will ask questions about where they came from, and who created them.

Quite simpily, the way I see it is: God is perfect, and therefore exists.

Obviously you can discard that statement in an argument, but after some deep thinking (which I will continue to do), it makes sense to me.

If one can find perfection, perhaps they can find God. But unfortunately, perfection is not evident in this world, nor can it ever come to be within the current bounds of the Universe. To claim to know anything about what lies beyond or to declare that this must already be God (ignoring the possibility of things beyond even that), would be a grave mistake.

*Interesting how the Gods of the older religions become the devils of the newer ones... Azuras were the predominantly "good" dieties in Zoroastrianism, but in Hinduism, the Devas are the "good" Gods and the Asuras are the "evil" ones. And in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, Devils are the servants of "evil".

 

[Exorcet]

I for one can't comprehend another answer to the 'why everything instead of nothing?' other than a monotheistic God, if you guys can then well done. Infinite regress has to stop somewhere, I find the unique, personal, spiritual, externally self existent, transcendent, immanent, omniscient, immutable, holy God, which is presented in The Bible the only answer.

Why does God make more sense than "it was always here" or "Zeus and friends"? At the very least, if you're willing to accept God, you should at least consider every other religion.

Quite simpily, the way I see it is: God is perfect, and therefore exists.

But the Carnot engine is perfect. Is doesn't exist.

 

[dylansan]

But the Carnot engine is perfect. Is doesn't exist.

TankAss, your reasoning is similar to the ontological argument for god, which is pretty easily disproved: (The guy swears at the beginning because it's part of his username...just ignore it)


The Carnot Engine is the most efficient engine conceivable.
An engine existing in the mind and reality is more efficient than one existing only in the mind.
Therefore, the Carnot Engine must exist; if it did not, it would not be the most efficient engine conceivable.

 

[huskeR32]

I for one can't comprehend another answer to the 'why everything instead of nothing?' other than a monotheistic God, if you guys can then well done. Infinite regress has to stop somewhere, I find the unique, personal, spiritual, externally self existent, transcendent, immanent, omniscient, immutable, holy God, which is presented in The Bible the only answer.

I don't follow you here at all. You're perfectly willing to fill in the gaps of scientific evidence with the catch-all that "god did it," but only if it's one god? Why exactly is that?

Didn't you say a while back that science has no limits? It seems that you are saying the exact opposite now.

I said that I can't comprehend the origin of the universe through pure natural causes.

The who created God question is in itself a fallacy, as it fails to acknowledge the very definition of the Christian God.

Trying to understand what? You have just said that we can't know everything, yet expect me to understand everything? If you can tell me the origin of the universe then be my guest.

The real fallacy here is your ridiculous definition of god:
-god can't be measured, therefore:
-god can't be proven to not exist, therefore:
-god exists

How convenient

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

It comes down either you believe the mind created matter (top to bottom view) or matter created the mind (bottom to top view) .
How can a mindless (without intelligence), blind, purposeless universe create a creature out of total randomness that has a mind/intelligence , that can see, and lives with purpose? It's like asking how can complex stuff like computers, cars, music, DVD players and movies,etc. come into existance without a mind?
Which is the great reality the mind or matter?

 

[dylansan]

How can a mindless (without intelligence), blind, purposeless universe create a creature out of total randomness that has a mind/intelligence , that can see, and lives with purpose? It's like asking how can complex stuff like computers, cars, music, DVD players and movies,etc. come into existance without a mind?

These are two very different questions. Things with intelligence do not require intelligence to be made. When a baby is born, it is not created through any intelligence. No one has to consciously or intentionally create the baby while it splits from one cell into a complete human, it just happens through the natural processes of reproduction.

And TankAss, why does the universe have to have a cause? Why couldn't it have just occured out of nothingness?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

These are two very different questions. Things with intelligence do not require intelligence to be made. When a baby is born, it is not created through any intelligence.

Really? This is like saying computers ( or Blu-ray disc) are not created through any intelligence but by man-made machines.

 

[dylansan]

No, it isn't. Babies and Blu-ray disks are not the same thing, and they are not created the same way.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

No, it isn't. Babies and Blu-ray disks are not the same thing, and they are not created the same way.

Blu-ray disc and data/software are the not the same either but are the products of an intelligence. Software/ information has no weight or mass.

 

[dylansan]

Bananas and oranges are not the same but are both fruit. This does not mean everything is a fruit.

You have to actually prove that everything with intelligence is the product of intelligence.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Bananas and oranges are not the same but are both fruit. This does not mean everything is a fruit.

You have to actually prove that everything with intelligence is the product of intelligence.

The problem with that is if you believe the brain is not a product of intelligence then it's impossible for me to prove anything to you since in your eyes my brain is also an accident. Why would you then believe anything I tell you?

 

[dylansan]

Because I still thought you were capable of making a logical argument regardless of where your brain actually came from. Unfortunately you seem to be having trouble doing so.

 

[TankAss95]

And TankAss, why does the universe have to have a cause? Why couldn't it have just occured out of nothingness?

Cause and effect?
This goes to infinite regress again. As I said about dividing the paper, you could argue that it is infinitely divisible, or you could argue that you could get to a point that it cannot be further divided.
So can scientists climb the eternal mountain to find an effect that has no cause previous to it?
The two quotes I previously mentioned I found beautiful. It really explains what I want to say. At the peak of the mountain I hypothesise a monotheistic God.

But the overall answer to your question, imagine absolutely everything as a singularity for a minute. That, in my mind was caused. That is the nail in the paradox: God.

By the way I apologise that this post is not conducted in a linear manner. I find it really hard to explain this stuff.

 

[huskeR32]

Cause and effect?
This goes to infinite regress again. As I said about dividing the paper, you could argue that it is infinitely divisible, or you could argue that you could get to a point that it cannot be further divided.
So can scientists climb the eternal mountain to find an effect that has no cause previous to it?
The two quotes I previously mentioned I found beautiful. It really explains what I want to say. At the peak of the mountain I hypothesise a monotheistic God.

But the overall answer to your question, imagine absolutely everything as a singularity for a minute. That, in my mind was caused. That is the nail in the paradox: God.

By the way I apologise that this post is not conducted in a linear manner. I find it really hard to explain this stuff.

Again, I ask:

You're perfectly willing to fill in the gaps of scientific evidence with the catch-all that "god did it," but only if it's one god? Why exactly is that?

 

[dylansan]

There is no reason to believe there has to be a singular beginning to the universe. For all we know, it could very well extend off into the infinite past. But if you assume there had to be an ultimate beginning, God doesn't answer that question. What created God? Nothing, you say, he was the beginning. Well okay. Why couldn't the universe have been the beginning, in itself? If God is immune to that question, why isn't the universe?

Not to mention, in all our observations, for things to be created, two conditions are required: Material and a cause. For example, for a table to come into existence, materials must be caused to form a table by some other existing thing. Tables cannot be caused to exist without existing material, nor can they be if nothing causes that material to form a table.

Now, if God created the universe, it means there was no original material to create it. Ok. Maybe our observations don't apply to the ultimate beginning of the universe, and God did create everything from nothing. But if that condition can be broken, why not the other. It is no less likely that everything came to being without material or something to cause it. The universe's existence does not require a God to have created it, as it could have just as logically come into existence without one.

And there's still no reason to think it had to have a beginning in the first place.

I fear the reason you find it hard to explain is because it isn't logically consistent. I urge you to think about your reasons for believing in a god with logical scrutiny, and actually consider whether different explanations answer your questions better. The only way to come up with accurate views is to actually compare different ones and figure out the best. What you seem to be doing is using your current views to explain many different things, and then getting confused when they don't explain everything you thought they did. It's because they probably don't. Try some other explanations, they might work better.

 

[TankAss95]

Again, I ask:

I believe in a monotheistic God, rather than multiple Gods (like dualism or polytheism). I believe both Ideas are man made.
I would provide my own explanation to why dualism is wrong, but C. S. Lewis hits the nail on the head:
"Neither of them chose this tête-à-tête. Each of them is therefore conditioned - finds himself willy-nilly in a situation, and either that situation itself, or some other unknown force which produced that situation, is the real Ultimate."
Basically you have to ask if there is some kind of unity between these two competing forces, and if so, does this not destroy their godlike status and reduce them to secondary players operating within a greater reality?

As for polytheism, it states that different 'God's' are hierarchically structured. This is like the idea of a God of war, God of the Sun, etc. I would imagine polytheism as an interesting way to view the world, but it makes no sense to me.

And then there is animism, which is clearly man made.

Monotheism just

 

[Sach]

My post in the other thread is probably more relevant here. Random thoughts...

How can 'an explosion' create 'laws' in the universe: the constant of gravity, the speed of light, the speed of sound, certain rays being able to pass through some objects but not others, the fact that most objects in space are rotating, various other mathematical principles, etc., etc.?


Math seems so obviously logical, because generally that's how it operates. But if you have nothing in existence, how does 'an explosion' give you mathematical principles and logic?


If something (say, God) can't be infinite because it's just too silly to consider, how can one explain the existence of Pi?


How does an explosion create so many of the things found on this planet that share the golden proportion? The Fibonacci sequence?


I don't deny the existence of the fact that you can basically reproduce evolution in a lab, on a smaller scale. But randomness just doesn't suffice when it comes to the rest of the properties of reality, imo.


k, thx, bye

 

[TankAss95]

There is no reason to believe there has to be a singular beginning to the universe. For all we know, it could very well extend off into the infinite past. But if you assume there had to be an ultimate beginning, God doesn't answer that question. What created God? Nothing, you say, he was the beginning. Well okay. Why couldn't the universe have been the beginning, in itself? If God is immune to that question, why isn't the universe?

Not to mention, in all our observations, for things to be created, two conditions are required: Material and a cause. For example, for a table to come into existence, materials must be caused to form a table by some other existing thing. Tables cannot be caused to exist without existing material, nor can they be if nothing causes that material to form a table.

Now, if God created the universe, it means there was no original material to create it. Ok. Maybe our observations don't apply to the ultimate beginning of the universe, and God did create everything from nothing. But if that condition can be broken, why not the other. It is no less likely that everything came to being without material or something to cause it. The universe's existence does not require a God to have created it, as it could have just as logically come into existence without one.

And there's still no reason to think it had to have a beginning in the first place.

I fear the reason you find it hard to explain is because it isn't logically consistent. I urge you to think about your reasons for believing in a god with logical scrutiny, and actually consider whether different explanations answer your questions better. The only way to come up with accurate views is to actually compare different ones and figure out the best. What you seem to be doing is using your current views to explain many different things, and then getting confused when they don't explain everything you thought they did. It's because they probably don't. Try some other explanations, they might work better.

Thanks for your comment and recommendation.
The question I always come back to is, "Why is there everything instead of nothing?"
When I first considered that question I found myself in a situation if though which I have never been in before. It was a few years back. I felt in awe of the universe, but I also felt that there was something more, something 'there', a meaning to everything. I find it hard to reach the same line of thought because it is so abstract, it's like I find it hard to comprehend. I would encourage you to look at the question again, but this time clear your mind. Get rid of any hypothesis, just think of everything in the exact way you see it.

"Why is there everything instead of nothing?"

After some thinking I concluded that the universe had to have had a beginning and that there must be reason behind it. Without meaning or reason, I cannot comprehend how or why everything exists. I am not sure what pure nothingness would be like, but imagine a vacuum. How can everything be made from the nothing that consists within that vacuum?
My whole belief in God is a belief in which I don't understand exactly 'how'. I assume that you look at the world in a materialism kind of view so maybe that's why you find it hard to understand why I believe in such things.
Anyway at this point in time I am putting my beliefs under scrutiny, but it's quite hard what my beliefs seem so obviously real to me. It's like instinct.

 

[Sach]

Thanks for your comment and recommendation.
The question I always come back to is, "Why is there everything instead of nothing?"
When I first considered that question I found myself in a situation if though which I have never been in before. It was a few years back. I felt in awe of the universe, but I also felt that there was something more, something 'there', a meaning to everything. I find it hard to reach the same line of thought because it is so abstract, it's like I find it hard to comprehend. I would encourage you to look at the question again, but this time clear your mind. Get rid of any hypothesis, just think of everything in the exact way you see it.

"Why is there everything instead of nothing?"

After some thinking I concluded that the universe had to have had a beginning and that there must be reason behind it. Without meaning or reason, I cannot comprehend how or why everything exists. I am not sure what pure nothingness would be like, but imagine a vacuum. How can everything be made from the nothing that consists within that vacuum?
My whole belief in God is a belief in which I don't understand exactly 'how'. I assume that you look at the world in a materialism kind of view so maybe that's why you find it hard to understand why I believe in such things.
Anyway at this point in time I am putting my beliefs under scrutiny, but it's quite hard what my beliefs seem so obviously real to me. It's like instinct.

I feel similarly.

 

[TankAss95]

I feel similarly.

I'm glad someone feels the same as me. 👍
I feel like I am laughably outmatched with the other people in this debate in terms of knowledge, but I am convinced that my beliefs can hold water.

 

[Sach]

People who think there is a scientific explanation for everything in the universe are also laughable, imo.


There's another one: How did 'an explosion' create all of science as we know it? Any answer to such a question is inescapably open-ended.

 

[dylansan]

You're not outmatched in knowledge. It's just that you're not as critical of your beliefs as some of us.

And yes, it boggles my mind that there is something rather than nothing, but I see no reason to believe we are especially lucky for that fact. After all, if somehow there was nothing, we wouldn't be there to be disappointed with it. I have cleared my mind, and thought about it for a few minutes, but it's a meaningless question. I can't figure out an answer that's any more or less likely true than any other, because it's something for which there is so little known. I, unlike you, refuse to choose one of the infinite possible answers just so that I can feel like I know. I don't know. I will probably die not knowing, and I accept that because to do otherwise is to be dishonest with myself and to pretend I have some source of information that others do not. I have many things to live for, many things I enjoy, and I don't see any benefit in believing things just to believe. I know it makes people happy, but I have real things to make me happy. Things I don't have doubts about. Why should I pursue a question when I have no expectation of an answer?

 

[dylansan]

People who think there is a scientific explanation for everything in the universe are also laughable, imo.


There's another one: How did 'an explosion' create all of science as we know it? Any answer to such a question is inescapably open-ended.

Here's an answer. We don't know. People who think every question needs an absolute answer, even if there is not enough information to determine it are laughable. Science answers all questions better than religion because religion doesn't care if it's actually true or not. And by religion I mean any belief based on faith and not on evidence and logical reasoning.

 

[TankAss95]

People who think there is a scientific explanation for everything in the universe are also laughable, imo.

There's another one: How did 'an explosion' create all of science as we know it? Any answer to such a question is inescapably open-ended.

When you look into the stability of our universe, the stability that we need to live. The structure of atoms, rotation of planets, selection of elements, correct temperature, etc, the odds for our existence are stupidly small. Even if you look at life forming, DNA or even RNA is fascinatingly complex. The deeper we know, the more complex it gets.

I have been told that the universe is not perfect many times in this thread, I would like to explain why I think it is: If the universe was perfectly ordered, then it would be like a piano key repeatedly being struck in perfect tempo. It would be boring and hold no interest. If the universe was totally chaotic then any progress made or anything worth of interest would be disassembled or ignored, a bit like a toddler stamping down the keys of the piano with no order. I find the universe to be in a perfect balance of order and chaos. It's like a conducted masterpiece, like an interesting piano song. It's chaotic enough to keep you interested, but ordered enough for interest to be acknowledged and built upon.

 

[TankAss95]

You're not outmatched in knowledge. It's just that you're not as critical of your beliefs as some of us.

And yes, it boggles my mind that there is something rather than nothing, but I see no reason to believe we are especially lucky for that fact. After all, if somehow there was nothing, we wouldn't be there to be disappointed with it. I have cleared my mind, and thought about it for a few minutes, but it's a meaningless question. I can't figure out an answer that's any more or less likely true than any other, because it's something for which there is so little known. I, unlike you, refuse to choose one of the infinite possible answers just so that I can feel like I know. I don't know. I will probably die not knowing, and I accept that because to do otherwise is to be dishonest with myself and to pretend I have some source of information that others do not. I have many things to live for, many things I enjoy, and I don't see any benefit in believing things just to believe. I know it makes people happy, but I have real things to make me happy. Things I don't have doubts about. Why should I pursue a question when I have no expectation of an answer?

Thank you so much for spending time to overview the question.
The reason why have an answer is because I feel that I have been given an explanation. Christianity has totally changed my views of everything.
As I have said before I find it hard to explain these things, but I found a really great debate between Richard Dawkins and Alister Mgrath: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxc0NpTZE18&feature=youtube_gdata_player
It has many different parts to it so you have to view multiple videos. I feel that Alister relates to my own views very closely, he just explains it in a more fluent manner.
I probably will never get people in this thread to start believing in God, and that is not what my main purpose was, I want to try and get people to 'get', or understand the Christian faith.
Thanks for your time.

Oh and also may I add that Alister was originally an atheist until he went to university. If you watch the videos you may relate to him in some ways.

 

[dylansan]

When you look into the stability of our universe, the stability that we need to live. The structure of atoms, rotation of planets, selection of elements, correct temperature, etc, the odds for our existence are stupidly small. Even if you look at life forming, DNA or even RNA is fascinatingly complex. The deeper we know, the more complex it gets.

We live in a stable universe because if it wasn't stable we wouldn't live in it. Think of planet Venus for example. It is not an environment we can survive in, or any other life forms we currently know of. Someone in a universe that harsh would have no reason to think it was perfect, but then they also wouldn't exist.

The odds of us existing in a particular universe are incredibly small, but if all possible universes exist, it's still 100% likely that we will exist.

I have been told that the universe is not perfect many times in this thread, I would like to explain why I think it is: If the universe was perfectly ordered, then it would be like a piano key repeatedly being struck in perfect tempo. It would be boring and hold no interest. If the universe was totally chaotic then any progress made or anything worth of interest would be disassembled or ignored, a bit like a toddler stamping down the keys of the piano with no order. I find the universe to be in a perfect balance of order and chaos. It's like a conducted masterpiece, like an interesting piano song. It's chaotic enough to keep you interested, but ordered enough for interest to be acknowledged and built upon.

Interesting analogy, but there's no evidence that a universe more supportive of life would necessarily be worse or more boring than our own. As well, just because our universe is between total chaos and total order does not mean it is at the perfect balance of the two, it just means it's somewhere between. You need to come up with an exact definition of perfect before you start examining qualities of our universe, because it is a really subjective thing and there are many things most people would agree are not perfect about it.

 

[Sach]

The odds of us existing in a particular universe are incredibly small, but if all possible universes exist, it's still 100% likely that we will exist.

Not sure if you are aware of the specificity of this statement.