Artful Dodger: Slight problem in his thinking...

.."..The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off..."

If just hydrogen and helium.. where did the carbon come from? And what about the other elements??

Iamon_lyme: Basically trusting it does work as we know it does. I tried years ago after a 'dream' visualising being one and at the same time everywhere at the same time and it does do your head in as we are not use to it in a physical universe.

"The mistake many scientists make is to poo poo faith as religious nonsense, while at the same time relying on faith to move their own nebulous theories forward."

Like when in the cold war they were training psychics to spy.

.... mmmmm It makes sense now

Artful Dodger: Oh I feel there is something out there or at least I hope so! I would hate to think that this is it but I dont think of it as a God as portrayed in the bible.
That is why I am a Humanist and tend to "Do as the Romans do when in Rome"

(V): I'm being half serious and half flippant about this, so both of those states exist at the same time. That too was a joke, by the way. But my original thought was simply how can everything we see now have existed in various stages of size? The enitre universe existed in an area the size of a basketball, and even when all matter and energy was nearly fully formed, it existed within an area you could in no way now fit the entire universe in. I understand how space itself was being defined during this time, and how on the quantum level the rules defining space can break down as well as other defining features we have come to see as immutable (on a larger nonquantum scale) We all see with the same limited senses. I am simply admitting to my inability to understand everything from the limited perspective of being a creature who cannot hope to "see" how it all works, but must by neccessity rely on my ability to understand it. Everyone relies on faith to some degree, "the evidence of things not seen". But even faith must be based on something other than what we are able to imagine. The mistake many scientists make is to poo poo faith as religious nonsense, while at the same time relying on faith to move their own nebulous theories forward. I am not against science, I am all for it. What I am against is wanton irrationality in the so called search for "truth" by some who are not as intellectually honest as they would like me to believe. Just because I believe in an intelligent designer doesn't mean I can be fooled by 'science-speak'. It is a m;istake to over estimate or underestimate someone based solely on what they believe about God.

Bwild: What to show something that anyone who's interested in the name "Edwin Hubble" would know....

"....Edwin Hubble's arrival at Mount Wilson, California, in 1919 coincided roughly with the completion of the 100-inch (2.5 m) Hooker Telescope, then the world's largest telescope. At that time, the prevailing view of the cosmos was that the universe consisted entirely of the Milky Way Galaxy. Using the Hooker Telescope at Mt. Wilson, Hubble identified Cepheid variables (a kind of star; see also standard candle) in several spiral nebulae, including the Andromeda Nebula. His observations, made in 1922–1923, proved conclusively that these nebulae were much too distant to be part of the Milky Way and were, in fact, entire galaxies outside our own. This idea had been opposed by many in the astronomy establishment of the time, in particular by the Harvard University-based Harlow Shapley. Hubble's discovery, announced on January 1, 1925, [8] fundamentally changed the view of the universe...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

... Better learn some astronomical history Bwild.

(V): "seeing as less then a hundred years ago we did not know there was one."
lol..better check google

Iamon_lyme: Singularities (as the scientists say are not bound by large scale physics but quantum level physics.
......Art's point of.... "which I can't explain but then neither can physics." ... is false.

Einstein's physics do not work at the quantum level, but he was ok with that and so are the scientists today. If quantum level physics does not work they.. we couldn't be here. Electrons move by quantum rules.. Plants in their daily photosynthesis use quantum level physics to be ultra efficient in the absorption and utilisation of sunlight.

As to things being infinite..... I'm not sure it is... relatively.

"but I don't think it's because of some crack leaking gravity from another dimension into ours."

It's not a crack.. a fold, a bend, a rotation.. but not a crack... and it's still in one of our dimensions just one of the many our eyes were not designed to see.

"Scientists should stop screwing around with fancy and imaginative theories, and go back to finding simple and common sense anwsers."

.... why? It is our curiosity at the majesty of the universe that lets us understand how wonderful it is. We still are learning about our Universe, seeing as less then a hundred years ago we did not know there was one... just a galaxy as far as Earth knew!!

Artful Dodger: I can't access the emoticons here, so you will have to settle for an old fashioned LOL. Hopefully he now uses paper and pen for scribbling his notes, and does not use crayons on the family room wall. My kids were geniuses when it came to knowing when we were paying attention or not. I don't know anything about this kid, but already I'm starting to like him. I payed a lot of attention to how much cereal was in the box, and where the prize could most likely be found. I solved that problem by dumping all of it into a large mixing bowl, and then putting it back into the box after getting the prize. What's his problem with the big bang theory? Is it the idea itself, or because of the exotic math found in string theory? We've infered from the math multiple extra dimansions, and then go from there to say that gravity is leaking into our dimension from one of the others. Something does seem to be leaky, but I don't think it's because of some crack leaking gravity from another dimension into ours. Most of this speculation does nothing more than satisfy the demands of an overly cumbersome mathematical structure, which by the way was originally derived from another equation put together for some other unrelated purpose. I can't imagine this kid saying he likes the steady state universe theory over the big bang theory when the evidence seems to point to some starting point. I'm guessing it's the math he has a problem with. Scientists should stop screwing around with fancy and imaginative theories, and go back to finding simple and common sense anwsers. Do it for the children, like little 12 year old Jimmy, or Tommy, or whatever the heck that kids name is. Doesn't matter, do it for the kids!! So,How am I doing, boss? You think there's a place for me in Democrat party politics?

It happened again. this always happens. I put everyone to sleep. (it's not you, it's me) :o)

Artful Dodger: Can we assume this 12 year old cosmological genius is smarter than a fifth grader? :oP I am almost certain that I am not. HAHAHAHAHAHA? bigthink link is interesting, but I need to go back and listen again. I sort of understood what he was saying about gravity. I think, maybe, I sort of understood it. If I wasn't now sober all the time, I might have gotten it the first time. Just kidding, but he was rather vague about whatever his point was. It seemed he agreed with what I just said about gravity, but then again, it was so vague I couldn't say for sure what he was alluding to. With my luck, he is registered at this site and I should expect to soon hear from him a critique of my ideas.

There is good reason our math breaks down when reverse enginering the universes expansion, when we reach a point shortly after the big bang expansion started. Math is customarily used to explain what we already know about something behaving in a consistant manner, This is how math has always been used, although we can use it now to speculate about things we may start out only imaginating. But the problem before us when looking at expanssion from some nondescript point is that the laws of our universe were in the process of being formed, before there were any laws to explain anything. There was nothing yet formed or fully formed for math to explain. String theory is popular because of its promise of possibly resolving this problem, but it is math in need of theories to explain what the math describes rather than math to describe what is already known. Also, in my opinioin the idea of anything being infinite is 'infinitely problematic' because there is no mathematical difference between the number _Zero_ and an imaginary value represented by the words _infinitely small. It's impossible to resolve this with any form of math we choose to use. I'm not saying there will never someday be a way to represent everything we believe happened through math, all the way back to the very beginning, but the idea of any chain of cause and effect that can be traced back to what amounts to a non existance cause is anathema to anyone trained in natural sciences. Just as there being a god or intelligent designer is anathema to anyone who is convinced there is no such being.

I must talk fast, before computer gets the hickups again. To the best of my understanding, space and time and even gravity are not things in the same way matter and energy are things. Space and time are both relationship of mass to other mass, space is the nothing between areas of mass and time is the relative changing positions of units of mass to one another, both are defined by mass but are of themselves not comprised of mass. Gravity, as I understand it, is the effect side in a chain of cause and effect of motion taking place within any unit of mass and its resulting effect on other mass. Put space and time together, put ;it in the oven at 350 degrees for 20 minutes, and you have baked a cake called "gravity". Space is the flour, and time is the yeast. In other words, time is the active ingredient. If you remove all space between mass you have neither space nor time. But if it was possible to stop only time, you would still have space. The infinitly small and dense singularity could just as easily be called infinitly large, because with nothing else to compare it to, the size of that point is irrelevant. Technically,, it have no size, since nothing yet exists to compare it to, at least not until chunks of matter are realised shortly after expansion occurs. Anyway, none of this is my area of expertise, but it is fascinating to think about. I am; retired, or unemployed (I haven't decided which yet) so have much more time to get lost in thought (lost in space?) over this.

Iamon_lyme: Extreme gravity and the fact that atoms are basically alot of empty space. If blown up an atom would have the nucleus the size of a ball while the electrons would be circulating at say 100 metres distance. Of the main forces in the physical plane.. gravity at the moment is a weak force, it's how come magnets can pick up metal. Yet at the time of the Big Bang, gravity was millions/billions/infinitely times strongly. It seems gravity at the moment 'leaks' into one of the strange new dimensions they are now finding thanks to atom smashers. With enough mass (like a black hole) gravity has enough force to compress matter and through that, bend space and time unlike anything in normal space.

An example of bending space... our Earth's gravitational effect compared to 'zero g' causes enough difference in time that the atomic clocks used in the GPS satellites have to corrected every day by earth based atomic clocks or they would be 10's of miles out.. just from the bending effect difference of zero g and 'one g'.

Another example would be that light takes just minutes to travel from the surface of the Sun to Earth, yet through gravity and other forces takes 10's/100's of thousands of years to reach the surface.

Artful Dodger: interesting comments on old earth and cosmology. Can you or anyone else tell my how everythink in our universe was small enough to fit into a basketball, then a beachball, and on up to all of the mass we now have in the universe? How could all present mass, potential or realised, exist in a tiny bubble the size of our moon for example? I was an old earther until I did a study of time, what it actually is and how it is subject to basic premise of relativity. There is no real way to judge the relative motion of mass shortly after the big bang event compared to motion of mass today without knowing precisely how fast things were moving then. We see how time is moving now, but using todays measuring stick for the entire span from big bang on up until now is like judging the distance a car has traveled in an hour based on its present speed. By the way, if anyone has been wondering why I have been slow to respond to my games, it's because both my home computer and my laptop are not working properly. Today is the first time in over a month I've been able to get anything done on the home computer. Am at the mercy of my computer, can only use it when it lets me. I know this the politics board, but I would like to see more of science and philosophy being discussed somewhere on this site. Is general chat reserved for anything not listed under any particular heading?

Keep things to the subject at hand please, and not personal bickering. ALL of ya!

Further stuff like that will be deleted.. blah blah blah... and if necessary, bans, blah blah blah. You all know it enough by now.

Bernice: And how should HAHAHAHA be spelt? j/k

Artful Dodger: she deleted her own post after she was caught at not being able to spell HAHAHAHA

The Col: Jews have traditionally seen Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history.[1] Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs.[2] However, since the general Jewish belief is that the Messiah has not yet come and that the Messianic Age is not yet present, the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism. At the heart of Judaism are the Torah, its commandments, the Tanakh, and ethical monotheism such as in the Shema — all of which predated Jesus.

Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism also forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God.[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus

Barrack Obama - America's Communist President

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Communism/barack_obama.htm

"The United States now has a Communist president as of January 2009. Some prefer to call President Obama a “Globalist” instead of a Communist, but there's not a dime's difference. Communism is a vehicle created long ago by the International Banking Cartel, intended to bring to fruition a Global Godless Totalitarian Communist Police State. Nazism and Communism are simply two separate legs walking in the same direction—toward world domination, aka, a New World Order. Karl Ritter is considered by most the father of Nazism, just as Karl Marx is considered by most as the father of modern Communism. Both evils are the work of God-hating humanists, Evolutionists and eugenicists. DEVILUTION!"

Whatever you do, don't become friends with a guy named Karl!

"For those who have studied, then you know that Communism was created by the Banksters (i.e., the New World Order gang), as a vehicle by which to achieve world government."

After reading this I will take my money out of the bankster's hands. I am going to start putting my money ujnder my mattress!

Feminism is evil!

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/feminism_is_evil.htm

Beware of the feminazis! These guys are real comedians!

From the website posted by Servant:

The Great Whore of Revelation Chapter 17
―The Roman Catholic Religion

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/the_great_whore.htm

Just when I thought nothing could make me laugh!

Czuch: IF there was nothing.. recent theories suggest that "nothing" could have just been the latest expansion of a massive (weight and mass wise) singularity. We are at a point (so I gather) that much ado about the creation of the universe is ... complicated and there are many theories floating about.

Basically have a beer and stop worrying about it

Bwild: I like saying elligent things though…

Pedro Martínez: lol thats the most inelligent thing you've said all week!!

Übergeek 바둑이: To me, there is more than enough evidence to show that life arose spontaneously without somebody being there to design it.


I can agree with this too.... what gets me up in the middle of the night, needing whiskey to shut me down again, is the creation of the universe itself.... I dont understand the big bang, and I cannot fathom what existed before that time, nor the creation of something from nothing, nor the existence of nothing, I mean right there....nothing is actually something isnt it? Like Tuesday said, it is comforting to believe that it will all be revealed upon our death, but religion is little more than man made comfort for the soul. Speaking of the soul..... is there one really, or is that something we have created as well? Ahhhhh.... more whiskey please.....

Tuesday: … except for your post.

Übergeek 바둑이: Still a theory though that could be applied to any planet/moon that has such items. A common problem with all this science......... we are still learning. We still are basically a planet bound race with only little data on how life might form in the realms of the universe/multiverse.

Artful Dodger:
Oh, don't get me wrong. An atheist has faith that God does not exist. That is all an atheist can do, because nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God scientifically.

There are certain things that did happen spontaneously in nature. The formation of the stable chemical elements is one. Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen adn hydrogen are abundant in the universe. They arise as stars spew out their matter and energy. It all happens in random systems, like the surface of the sun.

It has been proven scientifically that the basic building blocks of life (aminoacids, nucleic acids and carbohydrates) can be spontaneously synthesized in systems that mimic the early conditions of Earth. Abiogenesis ideas such as the "primordial soup" theory have been tested in the lab. The most famous experiment is the Miller-Urey experiment. Its more modern variants have synthesized all of the nucleotide bases in DNA as well as all 22 aminoacids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

If the base pairs of DNA can arise spontaneously, attaching them in long chains was not impossible, and the spontaneous rise of a viable DNA sequence was not impossible either.

Well, ultimately it is faith that determines what people believe. To me, there is more than enough evidence to show that life arose spontaneously without somebody being there to design it. Eventually scientists will acquire the technology and skills necessary to create life in the laboratory. That will put an end to creationism, and the only intelligent design will be what scientists do in genetics laboratories.

(V):

> It seems life maybe present on moons of other planets in this Solar system.

"Maybe" and "is" are two very different things. "Maybe" implies possibility. "Is" implies certainty. When scientists come out and say "Life is present in other moons ... " then we have certain proof. In the mean time it is all conjecture.

The Col: Go well with our Kevin Smith collection

(V): amazon has loads for just $12.50 a pop

The Col: We need more Buddy Jesus dolls

Übergeek 바둑이: Not from the recent shows on Discovery and the likes. It seems life maybe present on moons of other planets in this Solar system. The rules for life being present seem to be found to not be as hard as thought.

Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you.

written by George Carlin

Artful Dodger: Yes.. it does. It has to do with the way some churches present God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost as something.. 'special' rather than a natural thing. Same with ghosts and the 'paranormal'

Artful Dodger:

> You can't "prove" God but you can offer evidence for the existence of an intelligent force at work in the universe. Isn't that what SETI is all about? Proving the existence of an intelligence "out there" possibily on some other planet? And what is it that SETI looks to find? Signs (or evidence) of intelligence.

At the present, there is no evidence of "intelligence" or "life" outside of our planet. The closest we have come to finding life is organic chemicals in meteorites. Beyond that there is no evidence of life anywhere else, but it is quite likely that in the future life could be found in other planets and even in smaller celestial bodies.

As for intelligence, the most intelligent non-human creatures that we have found so far are primates like cimpanzees and gorillas, as well as non-primates like dolphins and even invertebrates like cuttle fish. However, none of them approaches our ability for language and abstract reasoning. We have found no intelligent aliens so far.

Is there an "intelligence at work in the universe"? There is no scientific proof of that. At best there is conjecture, and it is all along the lines of trying to prove that God (the intelligent designer) exists. This is the "intelligent design" argument, a branch of science that so far receives little support in the mainstream scientific community. Intelligent design is creationism repackaged in pseudoscience.

... "supernatural being" ... Does God if natural qualify as supernatural.. especially with some church's saying avoid the supernatural??

(V):

Mousetrap: Studying what it means to be human is what I thought the Bible was about. Philosophy, Bushido, Headology and such as that. But maybe it's just I've read/watched the likes of Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, Douglas Adams, Kevin Smith and other great writers.

Übergeek 바둑이:   Thank Gawd!

Doris:

Unfortunately there is no religion board. There is one in the Debate Club fellowship, but the discussions there are not as freely readable as they are here.

Is this the religion board or politics board?

(V):

> I do admit when it comes to physics and the nature of the universe,

We are approaching a level of technology that will make us rethink the origins of life and our relationship to the traditional view of God. There are several research groups who are trying to create an artificial cell. The idea is that if a cell is genetically engineered from the ground up, it could synthesize proteins and chemical substances with medical applications. These research groups are recoding the DNA of those cells and rebuilding the mitochondria, intracellular DNA, etc. It is not a matter of whether they will succeed but rather when. One of these days (probably in the next 10-20 years) we will see the first examples of artificial life. Humanity as the creator of life will make us reexamine how we see God as the only creator of life. This research will pose even greater challenges to traditional religion than things like cloning and stem cells have done. We also have the search for life outside our planet. Scientists have already discovered organic molecules and aminoacids in meteorites. One of these days we will find a bacterion or some primitive unicellular organism. I think religion can cope better with that. God made life outside Earth, why would god limit himself to one planet? We can cope with that, but humanity making artifical life is a different problem entirely. It will be interesting to see how our cultures cope with that.

> But you do have recorded in the Bible something of interest. How did Moses manage to see events that were caused by a volcano before theey arrived? Psychic senses?.. a throw back to animal senses?? God??? A mix?

I think the problem is the same as with most of the Bible. There is no proof of the historical existence of Moses. The historicity of Moses cannot be proved by archaelogical or cross-cultural analysis. The closest I have seen historians come is the excavations of the Hebrew quarters near the delta of the Nile. From what I saw in a documentary, the Hebrew quarters were not very different from the rest of the living accomodations among working-class Egyptians. However, there is no direct link to Moses. His existence (like that of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Saul, David, Solomon, Jesus, etc.) is a matter of faith.

>> "In doing so the complete absorption of stoicism into Christianity took place, and the denial of its Greek and Roman origins plunged western culture into obscurantism"

> Yes, but we have now thanks to the internet and such old fashioned things as libraries...

When people think of the Dark ages they assume that western culture somehow stopped. That is far from the truth. What obscurantism did is throw away aspects of Graeco-Roman culture that were not in line with the Christian dogma of the times. It does not mean that there was no cultural or philosophical development. It just meant a shift in what was acceptable in late Roman culture. Of course, Graeco-Roman philosophy survived in the libraries and translations of the Arabs. Moslems had a very open view in those days, and they preserved many Greek and Roman texts. Wester culture "rediscovered" (or rather reintegrated) that Graeco-Roman culture during the Renaissance. Today of course we have studied, analysed and superseded Graeco-Roman philosophy.

(V): I worked on what i supposed to be the oldest surviving testament of St John. Known as the the St John `s Fragment. Ancient tablets and palm leaves and even I am not convinced o the truth. That is why I am a Humanist. And I prolly seen ancient Bibles that most people will never ever see.

Übergeek 바둑이: I do admit when it comes to physics and the nature of the universe, multiverse, strings, branes, where gravity has gotten to, quantum level physics.... etc.

.... much of the cutting edge of physics now is just theory. When Einstein developed his theory's he knew that at a certain level his theory failed... but we have black holes as a result. A vital part in the creation of galaxies.

But you do have recorded in the Bible something of interest. How did Moses manage to see events that were caused by a volcano before they arrived? Psychic senses?.. a throw back to animal senses?? God??? A mix?

"In doing so the complete absorption of stoicism into Christianity took place, and the denial of its Greek and Roman origins plunged western culture into obscurantism"

Yes, but we have now thanks to the internet and such old fashioned things as libraries... at least we do have in the UK where one can study history and philosophy of the church(churches) the divisions, relations, wars, mass murders. The lost gospels.. the roots of Moses knowledge of God, etc, etc, etc.

"Without faith Graeco-Roman (and later Christian) idealism fall apart."

Isn't the difference between enlightened and unenlightened a matter of knowing and faith that you can know nothing?

(V):

Well, Christian philosphy is in essence stoic philosophy. Origen is proof of that. Stoicism was founded by Zeno, and he saw the universe itself as God. That is in perfect line with the Abrahamic religions and it is why stoicism became so influential on early Christian thought. The unmoved mover that Aristotle presented was also in line with Abrahamic thought. It is for these reasons that Christians adopted Aristotelian, Platonic and stoic philosophies. Once stoicism had taken hold in Christianity, the pagan origins of the philosophy had to be discarded and that was done by Justinian I in 529 BC when he closed all Graeco-Roman philosophy schools. In doing so the complete absorption of stoicism into Christianity took place, and the denial of its Greek and Roman origins plunged western culture into obscurantism. It took about 800 years for western culture to mature to a point where it could accept Graeco-Roman philosophy without seeing it as some pagan threat to Christianity.

Of course, believing in the unmoved mover, or a similar theistic view of the universe, is an act of faith. Nobody can prove scientifically that there was an "unmoved mover" or a god when the universe was created. As with everything to do with God, faith is the determining factor. Without faith Graeco-Roman (and later Christian) idealism fall apart.

Übergeek 바둑이: It's not that simple. I like how Aristotle talks about an unmoved mover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover


Also Origen... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

(V):

That makes for very interesting reading. Ramban's (Maimonides) view of the yetzer tov (good impulse) and yetzer ra (evil impulse) makes more sense than simply personifying evil in the Devil and then blaming the Devil for tempting humanity.

Buddhism sees all human actions as arising from the ego. Everything that is constructive and destructive in humanity arises from the need to satisfy our ego and to control the inherent impermanence of the universe. That is more like the yetzer ra explanation in that link. The big difference is that Buddhism sees everything as impermanent and ever changing. The idea of an eternal, unchanging God goes against that Buddhist idea. It is why Buddhism is a religion without Gods. (That does not mean that Mahayana Buddhists do not rever Buddha as if he were a God, but in the Hinayana tradition Buddhism has no Gods.)

For me the problem is not so much in the interpretation fo the Bible, but in how organized religion uses fear of punishment to control people. Organized religion also limits God. "God believes only in those who believe what our religion bleives. The rest are doomed to eternal punishment. Everything that we can know about God is in the Bible. Outside of the Bible all that we have are interpretations, but God gave us only this one book."

To think that the Bible is the only thing we can know about God is very limiting. If God is infinite, then explaining everything about God would require an infinite number of books. One book is at best a starting point. Anybody who claims that they know God from reading the one book is like claiming to know the ocean when all that you have seen in your life is a drop of water. We have read one book, and based on that we tell ourselves that we know God's nature and God's purpose. Then in our limited way we assign to God petty human limitations.

"God accepts my religion but not others." "Our team is the winning footbal team and other teams don't even know how to play the game." It sounds like a very petty view of God to me. If God plays favorites, why make the rest of humanity? Then we contradict ourselves and we say that God works in myseterious ways. With one sentence we say we know God from the one book, and with another we say that we don't understand God. It is nothing but a reflection of our limitations, not God's.