|
Post by Admin on Jun 22, 2022 22:54:32 GMT
The "things" to which I referred in that statement are things like infinite regression, spontaneous creation, alternate universes, dimensions that house four-sided triangles, the bizarre notion that nothing is something, and in this case, "rules from Before." That is not an answer. You confused me with captainbryce, the "things" remark goes to him. But I know from past experience not to expect a cogent reply to my question. If you're the one who said "it's entirely possible the universe popped into existence and began expanding without an outside force acting upon it" because "causality is a rule in our universe, not necessarily a rule from Before," then my response went to the right person. Do you believe a god (of any kind) exists? If not, you're an atheist. It's as simple as that. There is no fence. There's also no old man in the clouds zapping sinners with lightning bolts. So we are both atheists when it comes to Zeus, cool. But no, I see no evidence it's possible for a creator god to exist. <<<<< (I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. That doesn't answer the question. No need to try again, especially if you intend on amplifying your personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 22, 2022 22:56:12 GMT
captainbryce - There's far too much wrong in that novel for a detailed response, but it's not that complex. The way to craft a compelling argument isn’t by claiming “wrongness” and then offering excuses for why you won’t address the supposed wrongness. It’s by demonstrating the alleged “wrongness” at each step, and then providing a rational response for it. The fact that you’ve chosen ^THIS as your opening is an obvious tell that you don’t really have a rational counter-argument to each point I made. Which is totally not relevant since we are supposed to be discussing causes OF universes, as opposed to causes WITHIN the universe. The universe being “causal” doesn’t tell us anything about whether universes are “caused”. No there isn’t. There’s no evidence to support a beginning of the universe (nor can there be evidence for such a thing). You can’t use loaded language like this if your goal is to critically evaluate your own position. From my perspective, this hypothesis is no more “nonsensical” than yours is. What you have to do is demonstrate that your hypothesis IS in fact “sensical”, and you haven’t done so yet. Calling other positions nonsensical doesn’t establish that yours is. I agree. But I never said “avoiding god” was my goal. You assumed that because that is your theological assertion about atheists. It’s a straw man argument. My “goal” is to have rationally justified beliefs. God (as described) just happens to not be one. Oh, I’m well aware of that. I only wish that so many theists would come to realize this before using it in their apologetics arguments! 😏 No sir, it’s NOT a logical conclusion. It’s an illogical assertion that amounts to an argument from ignorance! What we “know to be true” is insufficient to draw the conclusions that you have. Your conclusion is hasty because we don’t have enough information and we cannot acquire the necessary information to reach the conclusion you’re trying to reach. We don’t need to do that at all. What we need to do is demonstrate knowledge about the origin of universes before making truth claims about it. Fundamental truths about the world “we live in” don’t do that, because we are only products of an existing universe and observers measuring from within it. Our perspective is extremely limited here! Arguing that what we observe within the universe is indicative of how things operate external to the universe is not logical. That is a fallacy of composition! Things that are true of a part are not necessarily true of the whole. The laws of physics (which include the laws of thermodynamics) are laws that govern how things operate within the universe. They don’t apply to things outside of the universe nor are they telling of how “universes” are existing in the first place. We have no idea why the universe exists because we have only ever observed ONE already existing universe. We have no other universes to investigate, and we cannot see back before the Planck time. So we don’t know anything about whether universes begin to exist, whether they have causes, or anything else that you are concluding. These are assertions with no demonstration. We don’t know why there is “something” rather than “nothing”. It may very well be that something necessarily exists, in which case there would be no beginnings or endings other than our arbitrary designations and measurements. Translation, didn’t want to read and couldn’t address! I wonder if the logic you’re using here applies to this “first cause” you’re positing…😏 I wonder if special pleading will come into play here… I read that entire post and carefully absorbed everything in it. That's how I know there's too much wrong to even attempt a detailed response. The TL;DR was for you.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 23, 2022 2:32:44 GMT
I read that entire post and carefully absorbed everything in it. That's how I know there's too much wrong to even attempt a detailed response. The TL;DR was for you. I’m totally fine with that. Because I’m just going to take that as you completely conceding the argument, recognizing that yours is futile, and acknowledging that you have no case. And I’m pretty every else in this thread who reads what you just wrote is going to take it that way too! But thanks for the discussion. 🍻😉
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 23, 2022 3:02:41 GMT
I read that entire post and carefully absorbed everything in it. That's how I know there's too much wrong to even attempt a detailed response. The TL;DR was for you. I’m totally fine with that. Because I’m just going to take that as you completely conceding the argument, recognizing that yours is futile, and acknowledging that you have no case. And I’m pretty every else in this thread who reads what you just wrote is going to take it that way too! But thanks for the discussion. 🍻😉 I suggest you familiarize yourself with the First Cause argument then revisit when you're willing to have a normal discussion instead of breaking every paragraph down into line-by-line arguments. It's exhausting. Later dude.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 23, 2022 4:26:22 GMT
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the First Cause argument then revisit when you're willing to have a normal discussion instead of breaking every paragraph down into line-by-line arguments. It's exhausting. Later dude. I’m good. But I generally prefer arguments of substance and communication that’s clear and honest. I’m sorry that my communication style exhausts you. I can only hope that it is viewed positively by others. Take care!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 23, 2022 4:43:28 GMT
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the First Cause argument then revisit when you're willing to have a normal discussion instead of breaking every paragraph down into line-by-line arguments. It's exhausting. Later dude. I’m good. But I generally prefer arguments of substance and communication that’s clear and honest. I’m sorry that my communication style exhausts you. I can only hope that it is viewed positively by others. Take care! No substance? Unclear and dishonest communication? lol. I'm not taking that bait. Your delusion doesn't bother me.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 23, 2022 14:01:50 GMT
Why would we assume and how could we know this 'other' existence is 'in motion' or has the ability to 'create' motion while assuming the natural can't just be 'in motion?' Ad hoc assertions must be made in either case.
Are you suggesting that the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine and everything in it is merely its parts? I agree there are dilemmas. I'm suggesting positing something else other than nature doesn't solve the problem we seem to be discussing...ie why is there something rather than nothing and why does the world we are aware of look and move like it does? There is no way to know that some other existence (supernature/God) explains the existence and motion of the universe any better than nature itself. As far as I'm concerned, the universe with its parts emerged from a natural background existence that somehow can generate universes. I don't believe even a god...an immaterial timeless mind, if such could even exist, could produce something from nothing.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 23, 2022 14:19:31 GMT
You just admitted to having zero knowledge about the origin of the universe so why have you been making confident assertions about what physics apply? The physical laws aren't mine. I learned them in school as you did, presumably. Theories on the origin of the universe I learn by reading and listening to physicists. They are not my theories to defend, and I don't understand them well enough to teach. The most important thing I've come to understand is that the universe is not intuitive. Causality is a rule in our universe, not necessarily a rule from Before. The "things" to which I referred in that statement are things like infinite regression, spontaneous creation, alternate universes, dimensions that house four-sided triangles, the bizarre notion that nothing is something, and in this case, "rules from Before." I don't find atheist to be a useful term and only use it as shorthand for other's benefit. I am an agnostic, an unbeliever. I was taught to believe in Yahweh but the evidence wasn't there and there is ample evidence the Abrahamic religions are mythologies. My only interest is in understanding reality. Science produces works, gods do not. Do you believe a god (of any kind) exists? If not, you're an atheist. It's as simple as that. There is no fence. There's also no old man in the clouds zapping sinners with lightning bolts. Can you describe your understanding of infinite regression? What problem(s) do you think it presents for a purely natural world?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 23, 2022 20:05:03 GMT
That is not an answer. You confused me with captainbryce, the "things" remark goes to him. But I know from past experience not to expect a cogent reply to my question. If you're the one who said "it's entirely possible the universe popped into existence and began expanding without an outside force acting upon it" because "causality is a rule in our universe, not necessarily a rule from Before," then my response went to the right person. So we are both atheists when it comes to Zeus, cool. But no, I see no evidence it's possible for a creator god to exist. <<<<< (I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. That doesn't answer the question. No need to try again, especially if you intend on amplifying your personal attacks. Broken record. I'm out, unless you go badmouth me again so I can catch you again and it'll be a perfect replay of previous interactions.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 23, 2022 20:46:49 GMT
If you're the one who said "it's entirely possible the universe popped into existence and began expanding without an outside force acting upon it" because "causality is a rule in our universe, not necessarily a rule from Before," then my response went to the right person. That doesn't answer the question. No need to try again, especially if you intend on amplifying your personal attacks. Broken record. I'm out, unless you go badmouth me again so I can catch you again and it'll be a perfect replay of previous interactions. I don’t remember badmouthing you, Sarge. If I did, rest assured it was only because I was playing on the stage you set. So if you don’t want it, don’t give it.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jun 23, 2022 21:29:37 GMT
Broken record. I'm out, unless you go badmouth me again so I can catch you again and it'll be a perfect replay of previous interactions. I don’t remember badmouthing you, Sarge. If I did, rest assured it was only because I was playing on the stage you set. So if you don’t want it, don’t give it. My replies are not meant as attacks but are frustration at the difficulty in having any kind of conversation with you.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 23, 2022 23:34:33 GMT
I don’t remember badmouthing you, Sarge. If I did, rest assured it was only because I was playing on the stage you set. So if you don’t want it, don’t give it. My replies are not meant as attacks but are frustration at the difficulty in having any kind of conversation with you. I still don't know where you think I badmouthed you, but in this thread, you jumped into my discussion with bryce, accused me of admitting some bullshit, then berated me for not answering a question or whatever (and never mind the fact that you totally ignored my request), and look where we are now. If you want to have a discussion with me, you might want to stop making the discussions about me.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2022 2:18:30 GMT
Are you suggesting that the universe itself is a perpetual motion machine and everything in it is merely its parts? I agree there are dilemmas. I'm suggesting positing something else other than nature doesn't solve the problem we seem to be discussing...ie why is there something rather than nothing and why does the world we are aware of look and move like it does? There is no way to know that some other existence (supernature/God) explains the existence and motion of the universe any better than nature itself. As far as I'm concerned, the universe with its parts emerged from a natural background existence that somehow can generate universes. I don't believe even a god...an immaterial timeless mind, if such could even exist, could produce something from nothing. Can you describe your understanding of infinite regression? What problem(s) do you think it presents for a purely natural world? The argument doesn't posit "something else other than nature." It draws a logical and rational conclusion based on what we currently know about the universe and the laws that govern everything we've observed so far. We have absolutely zero evidence of anything ever just popping into existence (let alone on its own), any effects without causes, or a train of box cars being pulled by an endless chain of other box cars with no engine at the front of it. According to everything we know about the universe in we live, those things are simply impossible. They are extraordinary claims without even the most ordinary evidence. If we're going to entertain the possibility of such things, we may as well entertain the possibility of God, but we can't do that because we took God off the table before we even began. We say there is no "supernatural," but then go on to posit things nature doesn't allow...like unmoved movers and uncaused causes. It's not the argument that relies on special pleading; it's the objections to it.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 24, 2022 9:21:19 GMT
I agree there are dilemmas. I'm suggesting positing something else other than nature doesn't solve the problem we seem to be discussing...ie why is there something rather than nothing and why does the world we are aware of look and move like it does? There is no way to know that some other existence (supernature/God) explains the existence and motion of the universe any better than nature itself. As far as I'm concerned, the universe with its parts emerged from a natural background existence that somehow can generate universes. I don't believe even a god...an immaterial timeless mind, if such could even exist, could produce something from nothing. Can you describe your understanding of infinite regression? What problem(s) do you think it presents for a purely natural world? The argument doesn't posit "something else other than nature." It draws a logical and rational conclusion based on what we currently know about the universe and the laws that govern everything we've observed so far. We have absolutely zero evidence of anything ever just popping into existence (let alone on its own), any effects without causes, or a train of box cars being pulled by an endless chain of other box cars with no engine at the front of it. According to everything we know about the universe in we live, those things are simply impossible. They are extraordinary claims without even the most ordinary evidence. If we're going to entertain the possibility of such things, we may as well entertain the possibility of God, but we can't do that because we took God off the table before we even began. We say there is no "supernatural," but then go on to posit things nature doesn't allow...like unmoved movers and uncaused causes. It's not the argument that relies on special pleading; it's the objections to it. www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/There is also this long video by Lawrence Krauss about the same phenomenon:
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2022 10:25:29 GMT
The argument doesn't posit "something else other than nature." It draws a logical and rational conclusion based on what we currently know about the universe and the laws that govern everything we've observed so far. We have absolutely zero evidence of anything ever just popping into existence (let alone on its own), any effects without causes, or a train of box cars being pulled by an endless chain of other box cars with no engine at the front of it. According to everything we know about the universe in we live, those things are simply impossible. They are extraordinary claims without even the most ordinary evidence. If we're going to entertain the possibility of such things, we may as well entertain the possibility of God, but we can't do that because we took God off the table before we even began. We say there is no "supernatural," but then go on to posit things nature doesn't allow...like unmoved movers and uncaused causes. It's not the argument that relies on special pleading; it's the objections to it. I figured someone would bring this up sooner or later. I'm familiar with that lecture, and what's funny about it is that when he's ridiculing string theory, he says something like, "If anything is possible, it's not a scientific theory." Krauss is also known for his assertion that nothing is something (see chapter 9 of his book, A Universe from Nothing, aptly titled "Nothing Is Something"), so even he isn't saying something comes from nothing. He's saying something comes from nothing which is something. At any rate, is it your contention that those "virtual particles that constantly wink into and out of existence" are uncaused causes? And if so, do you suppose it's time to revise natural law to accommodate this event, or should we just redefine what it means to be supernatural? I mean, I don't know about you, but if something were to just suddenly appear before me with no cause, I'd start wondering if Ghostbusters was a documentary. Anything is possible, indeed. Just not God because that would be silly.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 24, 2022 10:35:13 GMT
I figured someone would bring this up sooner or later. I'm familiar with that lecture, and what's funny about it is that when he's ridiculing string theory, he says something like, "If anything is possible, it's not a scientific theory." Krauss is also known for his assertion that nothing is something (see chapter 9 of his book, A Universe from Nothing, aptly titled "Nothing Is Something"), so even he isn't saying something comes from nothing. He's saying something comes from nothing which is something. At any rate, is it your contention that those "virtual particles that constantly wink into and out of existence" are uncaused causes? And if so, do you suppose it's time to revise natural law to accommodate this event, or should we just redefine what it means to be supernatural? I mean, I don't know about you, but if something were to just suddenly appear before me with no cause, I'd start wondering if Ghostbusters was a documentary. Anything is possible, indeed. Just not God because that would be silly. My post was in reply to your assertion. I'm well aware of his notion that nothing is something because even in a vacuum there still might be light, gravity and electromagnetic forces. If you want to say that nothing is the absence of anything, including those things, then as far as we know that type of "nothing" doesn't exist. At least as physics are concerned. Supernatural means outside of nature or beyond nature. Virtual particles popping out of existence is something that exists in the natural world so no need to redefine it. God is possible. No evidence that a God exists and it's not necessary as explanation to why the Universe exists. As for the Ghostbusters comment, I get it. People thought it was Zeus when they saw lightning back then. Now we know better.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2022 10:50:42 GMT
I figured someone would bring this up sooner or later. I'm familiar with that lecture, and what's funny about it is that when he's ridiculing string theory, he says something like, "If anything is possible, it's not a scientific theory." Krauss is also known for his assertion that nothing is something (see chapter 9 of his book, A Universe from Nothing, aptly titled "Nothing Is Something"), so even he isn't saying something comes from nothing. He's saying something comes from nothing which is something. At any rate, is it your contention that those "virtual particles that constantly wink into and out of existence" are uncaused causes? And if so, do you suppose it's time to revise natural law to accommodate this event, or should we just redefine what it means to be supernatural? I mean, I don't know about you, but if something were to just suddenly appear before me with no cause, I'd start wondering if Ghostbusters was a documentary. Anything is possible, indeed. Just not God because that would be silly. My post was in reply to your assertion. I'm well aware of his notion that nothing is something because even in a vacuum there still might be light, gravity and electromagnetic forces. If you want to say that nothing is the absence of anything, including those things, then as far as we know that type of "nothing" doesn't exist. At least as physics are concerned. Supernatural means outside of nature or beyond nature. Virtual particles popping out of existence is something that exists in the natural world so no need to redefine it. God is possible. No evidence that a God exists and it's not necessary as explanation to why the Universe exists. As for the Ghostbusters comment, I get it. People thought it was Zeus when they saw lightning back then. Now we know better. If a case is going to be made there is something rather than nothing because something can come from nothing, it's probably best not to also say that nothing is something because nothing doesn't exist. Supernatural is defined as "not subject to explanation according to natural laws." Anything that can defy any natural law would be considered supernatural by definition. Isn't there a natural law that prevents uncaused effects? If so, either those particles are supernatural or the law needs to be revised ASAP. A first cause is necessary to explain why the universe exists. Maybe it's nothing. You say we know better, but do we really? If anything is possible, why not Zeus?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jun 24, 2022 11:02:47 GMT
I agree there are dilemmas. I'm suggesting positing something else other than nature doesn't solve the problem we seem to be discussing...ie why is there something rather than nothing and why does the world we are aware of look and move like it does? There is no way to know that some other existence (supernature/God) explains the existence and motion of the universe any better than nature itself. As far as I'm concerned, the universe with its parts emerged from a natural background existence that somehow can generate universes. I don't believe even a god...an immaterial timeless mind, if such could even exist, could produce something from nothing. Can you describe your understanding of infinite regression? What problem(s) do you think it presents for a purely natural world? The argument doesn't posit "something else other than nature." It draws a logical and rational conclusion based on what we currently know about the universe and the laws that govern everything we've observed so far. We have absolutely zero evidence of anything ever just popping into existence (let alone on its own), any effects without causes, or a train of box cars being pulled by an endless chain of other box cars with no engine at the front of it. According to everything we know about the universe in we live, those things are simply impossible. They are extraordinary claims without even the most ordinary evidence. If we're going to entertain the possibility of such things, we may as well entertain the possibility of God, but we can't do that because we took God off the table before we even began. We say there is no "supernatural," but then go on to posit things nature doesn't allow...like unmoved movers and uncaused causes. It's not the argument that relies on special pleading; it's the objections to it. If the argument doesn't lead to something else other than nature, what was all discussion about something popping into existence and lines of box cars?
I'm NOT taking God off the table, God is definitely 'on the table.' I just have no reason to think God solves that 'endless line of boxcars' problem in that he would face the same problem. You can imagine him solving the 'endless line of boxcars' problem in another world...our natural world, but he has his own line of boxcars that is 'continuously moving.' Where is the beginning of his 'line of boxcars?' God has motion or can create motion...from whence did this capability come or has he someone just 'always' had the ability while not using it? What was God's first thought? If God exists timelessly then all his thoughts happen at once including the 'thought' to create the universe in which case the universe has always existed...that is it existed immediately when God thought it and since there can have been no time in which God did NOT think to create, the universe was immediately created. That right there should put an end to the 'God solves the endless/infinite regression' problem or at least open the door to imagine that the natural world could also exist timelessly and still 'produce' moving universes.
You like to describe all the problems the natural world all the while not really knowing all that the natural world entails and using dilemma's like 'infinite regress' you do not seem to understand because of the problems they also pose for God.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2022 11:18:11 GMT
The argument doesn't posit "something else other than nature." It draws a logical and rational conclusion based on what we currently know about the universe and the laws that govern everything we've observed so far. We have absolutely zero evidence of anything ever just popping into existence (let alone on its own), any effects without causes, or a train of box cars being pulled by an endless chain of other box cars with no engine at the front of it. According to everything we know about the universe in we live, those things are simply impossible. They are extraordinary claims without even the most ordinary evidence. If we're going to entertain the possibility of such things, we may as well entertain the possibility of God, but we can't do that because we took God off the table before we even began. We say there is no "supernatural," but then go on to posit things nature doesn't allow...like unmoved movers and uncaused causes. It's not the argument that relies on special pleading; it's the objections to it. If the argument doesn't lead to something else other than nature, what was all discussion about something popping into existence and lines of box cars?
I'm NOT taking God off the table, God is definitely 'on the table.' I just have no reason to think God solves that 'endless line of boxcars' problem in that he would face the same problem. You can imagine him solving the 'endless line of boxcars' problem in another world...our natural world, but he has his own line of boxcars that is 'continuously moving.' Where is the beginning of his 'line of boxcars?' God has motion or can create motion...from whence did this capability come or has he someone just 'always' had the ability while not using it? What was God's first thought? If God exists timelessly then all his thoughts happen at once including the 'thought' to create the universe in which case the universe has always existed...that is it existed immediately when God thought it and since there can have been no time in which God did NOT think to create, the universe was immediately created. That right there should put an end to the 'God solves the endless/infinite regression' problem or at least open the door to imagine that the natural world could also exist timelessly and still 'produce' moving universes.
You like to describe all the problems the natural world all the while not really knowing all that the natural world entails and using dilemma's like 'infinite regress' you do not seem to understand because of the problems they also pose for God.
Don't get personal. The discussion about "something popping into existence and lines of box cars" was about the 'pop theory' and uncaused causes, respectively. These are things that are impossible in nature, which is what our very existence would be if there were no first cause: impossible. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in god/s, and/or what I think it may or may not be other than eternal, independent, self-explanatory, necessary, unmoved, and uncaused. Maybe I misunderstood the questions. Good talk.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 24, 2022 11:21:48 GMT
My post was in reply to your assertion. I'm well aware of his notion that nothing is something because even in a vacuum there still might be light, gravity and electromagnetic forces. If you want to say that nothing is the absence of anything, including those things, then as far as we know that type of "nothing" doesn't exist. At least as physics are concerned. Supernatural means outside of nature or beyond nature. Virtual particles popping out of existence is something that exists in the natural world so no need to redefine it. God is possible. No evidence that a God exists and it's not necessary as explanation to why the Universe exists. As for the Ghostbusters comment, I get it. People thought it was Zeus when they saw lightning back then. Now we know better. If a case is going to be made there is something rather than nothing because something can come from nothing, it's probably best not to also say that nothing is something because nothing doesn't exist. Supernatural is defined as "not subject to explanation according to natural laws." Anything that can defy any natural law would be considered supernatural by definition. Isn't there a natural law that prevents uncaused effects? If so, either those particles are supernatural or the law needs to be revised ASAP. A first cause is necessary to explain why the universe exists. Maybe it's nothing. You say we know better, but do we really? If anything is possible, why not Zeus? When you open a box and the box happens it's empty we usually say there is nothing in there. But in reality, we know that there the empty box still contains air, possibly light and gravity is still functioning inside. The way I understand it, when Krauss says nothing he usually describing a vacuum. We have no indication that virtual particles apparently popping in and out of existence violates the "natural law". More likely, we don't have a full understanding of the Universe. This is especially true when dealing with stuff on the subatomic level where classical physics don't work the same way as they work on a macro scale. "A first cause is necessary to explain why the universe exists. Maybe it's nothing." A cause is necessary for the current state of the Universe. For all we know, the Universe as in "all the energy, time, matter" has always existed. Just in different states. One famous hypothesis is the Big Bounce. That the Universe is cyclical alternating between periods of expansion and contraction. A Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang followed by Big Crunch, repeat ad infinitum. Why not Zeus? Because he is unnecessary for the explanation of lightning. This was in reply to your example of something appear to you without cause, you would call the Ghostbusters. The ancient people saw a phenomenon they didn't understand like lightning and they came up with all sorts of supernatural explanations, one of them being a god of thunder causing them. Sure, you might call the Ghostbusters if saw something you didn't understand, but the fact that you don't understand, doesn't mean that there isn't a natural explanation. Hell it might be an explanation that eludes the entire human race but even if that's the case, it doesn't mean it's something not bound by the laws of the nature.
|
|