Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Tarsonis]

Actually observation, research and evidence is mostly what I do as a theologian. Not completely removed.

Theology is not science. You never apply these principles to God himself, which means any conclusions you draw are unfalsifiable (or, at best, irrelevant) due to being based on an unfalsifiable premise (i.e. that God exists).

True. But strict adherence to science is not the only way of making sense of the universe.

[Kowani]

Theology is not science. You never apply these principles to God himself, which means any conclusions you draw are unfalsifiable (or, at best, irrelevant) due to being based on an unfalsifiable premise (i.e. that God exists).

True. But strict adherence to science is not the only way of making sense of the universe.

Only one that wins in the long run, though, is science.

[Valrifell]

True. But strict adherence to science is not the only way of making sense of the universe.

Only one that wins in the long run, though, is science.

I don't think that science will ever yield satisfying questions to everything the universe has to offer, though. There are limits to what can be proven through the scientific method and consistent mathematics, the "God of the Gaps" argument will probably never go away.

[Thuzbekistan]

I'm an atheist, Because 18 of my friends and my ex girlfriend all died in various terrible ways and no amount of praying saved them. Good people suffer and according to religion, an all powerful being who could save them simply sits there and watches and does nothing, which is the ultimate cruelty

Thats... that's hard man. I'm sorry

[Andsed]

I'm an atheist, Because 18 of my friends and my ex girlfriend all died in various terrible ways and no amount of praying saved them. Good people suffer and according to religion, an all powerful being who could save them simply sits there and watches and does nothing, which is the ultimate cruelty

Damm dude my condolences. Losing so many people close it you is one of the hardest things someone can go through.

[Tarsonis]

Multiverse theorists would disagree.

Multiverse ‘theory’ hardly even qualifies as idle speculation.

While I agree, the point is not everyone agrees with you. Secondly, claiming nothing exists beyond the universe requires the acceptance that the Universe is just a brute fact, but the universe itself contradicts this. The universe exists in a linear time trame, t1 to t-infinity. However, we know that t-0 existed as well. A time when the universe did not exist. Thus the existence of the universe is not just a brute fact, it had a cause. A cause, necessitates a transcendent property to effect said cause.

In ability to observe is not prove of nonexistence.

It is however eminently critical to proving actual existence. Without that evidence to prove the positive claim that your god exists, logic dictates a default to its negation and that we hold any such claims with the weight equivalent to onesuch as yourself stamping their feet and insisting that your imaginary friend DOES exist, durn it!

Correct. However the problem there in lies that all evidence of God is experiential. I having such experiences, have sufficient logical cause to believe in God. Thus for me, the proof positive evidence is met.


An example of this would be Will Jimeno, the port authority police officer who survived being buried alive by the rubble in 9/11. While buried Jimeno claims to have a vision of Jesus holding out a bottle of Water. Amazingly, Jimeno and another officer survived 13 harrowing hours entombed in the burning rubble of the South Tower. They were fortunately rescued alive, after being located by Marine Staff Sergeant Karnes who had abruptly left his work to travel all the way from Wilton, CT, (partially on foot once he entered the city) and happened to be walking in the exact spot to hear them after all other rescue operations and suspended for the night.

Now sure, as the ones not having this experience, we might be able to chalk up Karnes' calling to his innate sense of duty instilled by 20 years of honorable service in the Marine Corps, and the visions Jimeno saw as projections of his desire to be rescued and brought about by severe dehydration and injury. But for Jimeno it will always be a religious experience, one he won't ever be shaken from.

However, such evidence is rarely transferable among individuals because it rests entirely on the veracity and authority of the one relating such experiences, as well as the experiences of the individual receiving the account. I having had religious conversion experience, hear of these experiences and accept them as believable. You, having no such experiences yourself (presumably), have no such basis to accept these views as legitimate, and no reason to accept them as evidence of the existence the existence of God.

Long story of short, it is logically sound for you to assume the null hypothesis, while it is not logically sound for me to assume the null hypothesis.

And just because I’ve dealt with this argument before: Trying to cast doubt on the efficacy of science and observation hurts your case more than it does mine. Best keep clear.

Sciencd is quite effective, but it has its limits. As I pointed out with the multiverse bit you subscribe to strict empiricism, but that’s not a position universally held by atheists let alone theists.

The existence of a speculative branch of discussion does not count as a counterproof. Multiverse concepts don’t even qualify as hypotheses. [/quote]

The point is your view is not even universally held, and yet you've asserted it as true with no real justification.

The title of the thread is “Why do you/don’t you believe in God”. Not, “Theists prove God exists” not that anti-theists can tell the difference.

And the nature of this forum is that of debate and having your ideas challenged. You bring it up, you back it up. If you were not interested in actual debate, you could have just posted your first piece and left the thread never to return, satisfied that your say was had.

Because, my point was not understood, and had to correct people's understanding of my point multiple times. And I will continue to post until I'm understood. Whether I'm believed is another matter entirely.

You’re still posting here though. Hm.

Of course, ghosting is rude.

[Estanglia]

(Numbered for the purposes of easier responses)

1. Near Death Experiences may have a biological basis in neural activity. They do not necessarily make heaven real. The veracity of Belgium is confirmed (and Belgium can be visited at will by anyone with a spare weekend and some spare cash -- you can't say that for Heaven). And the Book of Revelations is not the same as the topographical map.
2. All debate involves taking an opposite stance and arguing your point. When people have opposing views and take different sides in a debate, there is always argument involved. Even when it is civil.
3. My point on the Christians was more about hypocrisy. What if the toddler persistently refused. Some conservative Christians would argue the child was being disobedient and believe in "training up a child"(even of babies only a few months old -- discretion advised)
4. "Yes, your backside does look absolutely huge in that" hurts less than, "Of course your bum doesn't look big in that, but I saw something over there that would look even better?"
5. It's listed as a sin (along with fornication, adulterousness, covetousness -- again -- filthiness and foolish-talk), so the Bible's wrong? 3-7 says:

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

"Wrath of God" sounds pretty strong. And, I have to say that Heaven sounds pretty miserable with no jollity.

Incidentally, humour is always necessary. It makes life better.

1. The Book of Revelations shows what Heaven looks like. It's the same idea. And near death experiences where someone sees heaven exactly as the Bible describes it aren't a coincidence.
2. What I meant is if it's dividing the church or hurting the church somehow.
3. I'm sure if God created people, he would be aware that the toddler isn't aware of what he's doing. And what's in that link isn't something that Christians should ever agree with, since the Bible says fathers shouldn't exasperate their children.
4. It's better to be honest, yes.
5. It's not listed as a sin, it's just recommended that you don't waste time. But I believe that God needed some humor to make people.

1) (emphasis mine) They almost certainly are. Otherwise, what about all those people with near-death experiences that didn't see heaven?

---

No he does not. He has done nothing to help the kids in Africa or any other people in poor places in the world.

He has done a lot. You might not know about it.

2) He's done nothing. Otherwise, where's all the headlines of God coming down and saving starving children?

---

Starving a kid to death who prays to food is not answering prayers, that's being misleading at best and cruel at worst.

He also miraculously feeds and heals them.

3) He doesn't.

---

Oh really? Please provide us a link showing this.

What these people are doing. Most miracles sadly aren't recorded.

4) So humans. Not God.

---

Yes, humans giving people food out of their good, but free, will

That has nothing to do with answering prayers. If I went to Africa and gave a kid a Chicken Leg, that does not mean a god granted their prayer for food. It just means I went to Africa and gave them a Chicken Leg.

That is God answering their prayer through you. God sends people to do his will.

5) Even through atheists? Seems like a dick move.

"Hey, I know I used you to fulfill someone's prayer, but you're still going to hell."

6) It also seems like it goes against free will.

---

Like?

Like this.

Ah, so basically you have no evidence that god is actually telling them anything. There is literally no way to differentiate between a god not existing and people just acting like people and doing it on their own...and having a few people supposedly told to act by god. Also...I find it funny that the people who have to be told by a god to act are going to heaven, while those who have not spoken to the god and are acting anyway get to go to hell because they do not believe.

The evidence is when people say they acted because God told them to.

7) Soo.... Not evidence.

---

1. Seeing as there is fundamental disagreement about the existence of 'natural law', making claims about where its source is seems rather moot.

It doesn’t matter. I’m explaining the Catholic Doctrine. I’m not trying to convince just illuminate our perspective.

2. Inclinations ingrained in our species is another word for instinct. Ya might as well have said 'instructions stored in our DNA'.

Sure, but it’s not just ingrained in our DNA like a phobia, its part of a natural harmony between our instinct and our intellect and our souls.

3. Prove souls exist.

Prove they don’t.

Not how proof works.

---

Repeating it doesn't make it less ludicrous. You're making a lot of claims without any evidence whatsoever.

The context of my statement is in clarifying what the Catholic perspective is. I’m not proving anything. If you want evidence that this is the Catholic teaching by all means crack open the Catechism.

Don't have to. It's on you to prove the positive.

I don’t have to prove anything. Again I’m only clarifying the Catholic position, and the Catholic position is that the soul exists.

Your 'Catholic Perspective' operates on a flawed basis.

God created the universe, therefore all things in nature come from God.

Nope pretty sound logic.

9) Basing your logic on an unproven, unprovable entity isn't as sound as you think.

---

God mind-controlling Pharaoh is not an irrelevant detail.

But He didn't. Hardened pharoe's heart=allowed pharoe to harden his own heart

10) The bible is so terrible at explaining what happened that I'm somewhat surprised people still believe it.

[Salandriagado]

Theology is just bad philosophy, and consists entirely of assuming that God exists, and ignoring all evidence to the contrary for ever.

No. You specifically said that believers are UNEDUCATED and do NOT think about God. You can't change your viewpoint midway through, unless you admit you're wrong

No, I didn't. I said that many people, you included, do not have the educational grounding that you are claiming to have. Kindly stop lying about me.

[Salandriagado]

But He didn't. Hardened pharoe's heart=allowed pharoe to harden his own heart

Just to clarify, the number 40 is a place holder for an indeterminate amount of time, it’s not supposed to be an exact figure.

Which is utterly irrelevant, because the whole incident simply never happened.

[Tarsonis]

(Numbered for the purposes of easier responses)

1. The Book of Revelations shows what Heaven looks like. It's the same idea. And near death experiences where someone sees heaven exactly as the Bible describes it aren't a coincidence.
2. What I meant is if it's dividing the church or hurting the church somehow.
3. I'm sure if God created people, he would be aware that the toddler isn't aware of what he's doing. And what's in that link isn't something that Christians should ever agree with, since the Bible says fathers shouldn't exasperate their children.
4. It's better to be honest, yes.
5. It's not listed as a sin, it's just recommended that you don't waste time. But I believe that God needed some humor to make people.

1) (emphasis mine) They almost certainly are. Otherwise, what about all those people with near-death experiences that didn't see heaven?

---

He has done a lot. You might not know about it.

2) He's done nothing. Otherwise, where's all the headlines of God coming down and saving starving children?

---

He also miraculously feeds and heals them.

3) He doesn't.

---

What these people are doing. Most miracles sadly aren't recorded.

4) So humans. Not God.



5) Even through atheists? Seems like a dick move.

You as well are operating under the paradigm of "By nature, therefore not by God." which wouldn't compute to us.

People doing the works of the Lord, i.e feeding the hungry, doesn't remove God from the equation. God doesn't work by miracles alone, but by and through people, and yes even atheists. "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." Romans 2:14.

So for us, whenever we see people doing these great things we also see God in their works.

"Hey, I know I used you to fulfill someone's prayer, but you're still going to hell."

6) It also seems like it goes against free will.

It's not a question of balance, it's a questions of standard. It's not about doing more good than Bad. Doing Good is what is expected, doing bad is missing the mark. You can't make up for the bad by doing Good.

That is why Christ died for us, to bridge the gap.

7) Soo.... Not evidence.

As unreliable as it can be, witness testimony is still, in fact, evidence.

Not how proof works.

The existence of a Soul is Christian teaching. The proof of its existence, is predicated on the existence of God. The demand to prove souls exists is red herring, and thus not actually meriting a legitimate response.

9) Basing your logic on an unproven, unprovable entity isn't as sound as you think.

It's not unsound either.

10) The bible is so terrible at explaining what happened that I'm somewhat surprised people still believe it.

Helps that the bible isn't the source of our faith.

[Salandriagado]

The difference is that the majority of guesses that scientists make are (while not 100% proven), backed by some form of science. Whereas the claims of religion have no such basis.

And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

The science that we trust is the science that we can replicate. I can trust science because, if there were something that I didn't believe, I could go and check it for myself. Every scientific paper going contains instructions on how to go about doing this.

[Salandriagado]

Two things:

Outside the universe = doesn’t exist.

Multiverse theorists would disagree.

Inasmuch as such actually exist: no, they wouldn't.

You have no basis to ascribe traits to anything that we cannot observe quite simply BECAUSE they cannot be observed.

In ability to observe is not prove of nonexistence.

It is, however, extremely strong evidence of non-existence.

And just because I’ve dealt with this argument before: Trying to cast doubt on the efficacy of science and observation hurts your case more than it does mine. Best keep clear.

Sciencd is quite effective, but it has its limits. As I pointed out with the multiverse bit you subscribe to strict empiricism, but that’s not a position universally held by atheists let alone theists.

What you just said is "I'm ignoring all of the evidence because I say so", wrapped up in fancy words.

[Salandriagado]

I hope that this is not heretical, I really do, but here's my theory about God.
According to modern science, a subatomic particle is capable of behaving in 4 different manners:
Let's call them A, B, C & D- whether the subatomic particle will behave as A, B, C or D is random. If you were capable of knowing the actions of each of those subatomic particles, you would know anything and everything about the universe. If you know which particles will behave as A, then you will know the consequences of behaving as A. If you know which particles will behave as B, then you know the outcome of particles behaving as B, etc. So, therefore, God designed this system for us so that we can have free will. God knew each individual outcome, but still allowed it to take its own coarse. God only to tweak a hand full (by which I mean trillions and trillions and trillions) of As in order to make them Bs. He had to tweak a few A to male them Cs, He had to tweak a few Cs to make them As, etc. We, as His creation, have no idea which particle were tweaked, but we still see the consequences of it.
Or in other words, the outcome of most subatomic particles is random, but a tiny minority of them were intentionally tweaked

This is utter and complete gibberish.

[Salandriagado]

People have also murdered because they said god tells them so.

Eliminating the Canaanites and the others -ites is akin to purging cancer cells from a human body. They had the WORST religious practices, like Child sacrifices. Allowing them to live (which was Israel’s big mistake) allowed them to intermarry with Israelites, therefore infecting the chosen people with their relatavistic ideologies (whatever you want to do, do it), and thus setting off the dark times that was the time of the Judges.

Don’t get me started with the Crusades, because Pope Urban only wanted to establish himself as leader of a United Christendom. In other words, not exactly a God-given reason.

"People who don't follow our religion deserve genocide" -- Korhal IVV, 2019.

[The New California Republic]

The difference is that the majority of guesses that scientists make are (while not 100% proven), backed by some form of science. Whereas the claims of religion have no such basis.

And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

Science is extensively peer-reviewed, and any methodology and results need to be repeatable, and a causal link firmly established. So no, categorising science as "just a bunch of writings from strangers" is extremely off-beam.

[Salandriagado]

Theology is not science. You never apply these principles to God himself, which means any conclusions you draw are unfalsifiable (or, at best, irrelevant) due to being based on an unfalsifiable premise (i.e. that God exists).

True. But strict adherence to science is not the only way of making sense of the universe.

No. There's also mathematics, for a sufficiently loose interpretation of "universe". That's pretty much it as far as things that actually work go.

[Salandriagado]

Multiverse ‘theory’ hardly even qualifies as idle speculation.

While I agree, the point is not everyone agrees with you. Secondly, claiming nothing exists beyond the universe requires the acceptance that the Universe is just a brute fact, but the universe itself contradicts this. The universe exists in a linear time trame, t1 to t-infinity. However, we know that t-0 existed as well. A time when the universe did not exist.

If you "know" that, I suggest you publish your research and collect your Nobel prize, because nobody else does.

Thus the existence of the universe is not just a brute fact, it had a cause. A cause, necessitates a transcendent property to effect said cause.

Even if we assume that your above claim is true, having a start does not imply a cause, let alone a "transcendent property", whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.

It is however eminently critical to proving actual existence. Without that evidence to prove the positive claim that your god exists, logic dictates a default to its negation and that we hold any such claims with the weight equivalent to onesuch as yourself stamping their feet and insisting that your imaginary friend DOES exist, durn it!

Correct. However the problem there in lies that all evidence of God is experiential. I having such experiences, have sufficient logical cause to believe in God. Thus for me, the proof positive evidence is met.

Anecdotes are not data.

An example of this would be Will Jimeno, the port authority police officer who survived being buried alive by the rubble in 9/11. While buried Jimeno claims to have a vision of Jesus holding out a bottle of Water. Amazingly, Jimeno and another officer survived 13 harrowing hours entombed in the burning rubble of the South Tower. They were fortunately rescued alive, after being located by Marine Staff Sergeant Karnes who had abruptly left his work to travel all the way from Wilton, CT, (partially on foot once he entered the city) and happened to be walking in the exact spot to hear them after all other rescue operations and suspended for the night.

People in stressful situations seeing things is not unusual. People getting lucky is also not unusual. Neither of these even rates as especially unlikely, let alone miraculous, given the available sample sizes.

Now sure, as the ones not having this experience, we might be able to chalk up Karnes' calling to his innate sense of duty instilled by 20 years of honorable service in the Marine Corps, and the visions Jimeno saw as projections of his desire to be rescued and brought about by severe dehydration and injury. But for Jimeno it will always be a religious experience, one he won't ever be shaken from.

Which isn't evidence of anything, other than his (understandable) lack of critical thinking on the issue.

However, such evidence is rarely transferable among individuals because it rests entirely on the veracity and authority of the one relating such experiences, as well as the experiences of the individual receiving the account. I having had religious conversion experience, hear of these experiences and accept them as believable. You, having no such experiences yourself (presumably), have no such basis to accept these views as legitimate, and no reason to accept them as evidence of the existence the existence of God.

No, it doesn't transfer because it isn't evidence. Specifically, a fact F is evidence for a proposition P if the probability of P being true given that F is true is strictly higher than the probability of P being true given that F is false. (Note, in particular, that this means that not(F) is necessarily evidence for not(P)). If your thing doesn't fit this, then it isn't evidence. Notice that this is objective.

Long story of short, it is logically sound for you to assume the null hypothesis, while it is not logically sound for me to assume the null hypothesis.

No. Nothing that you have listed is evidence.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The difference is that the majority of guesses that scientists make are (while not 100% proven), backed by some form of science. Whereas the claims of religion have no such basis.

And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

Sure, nuclear power, modern electronics, and long range communications started out as "bunch of writings from strangers" too.

[Salandriagado]

(Numbered for the purposes of easier responses)




1) (emphasis mine) They almost certainly are. Otherwise, what about all those people with near-death experiences that didn't see heaven?

---

2) He's done nothing. Otherwise, where's all the headlines of God coming down and saving starving children?

---

3) He doesn't.

---

4) So humans. Not God.



5) Even through atheists? Seems like a dick move.

You as well are operating under the paradigm of "By nature, therefore not by God." which wouldn't compute to us.

This is you stating that you are assuming your conclusion, and not actually answering the question at all.

People doing the works of the Lord, i.e feeding the hungry, doesn't remove God from the equation. God doesn't work by miracles alone, but by and through people, and yes even atheists. "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." Romans 2:14.

Yes, it does. The world would look no different with this "god" removed. Thus, this "god" isn't there.

So for us, whenever we see people doing these great things we also see God in their works.

That's just... ungrateful.

7) Soo.... Not evidence.

As unreliable as it can be, witness testimony is still, in fact, evidence.

Not testimony of this form.

Not how proof works.

The existence of a Soul is Christian teaching. The proof of its existence, is predicated on the existence of God. The demand to prove souls exists is red herring, and thus not actually meriting a legitimate response.

You have used the claim that souls exist in an attempt to establish the existence of your god. Your reasoning is circular.

9) Basing your logic on an unproven, unprovable entity isn't as sound as you think.

It's not unsound either.

Yes, it is. Absolutely and completely so. You've assumed a naked contradiction, and therefore your system of reasoning is necessarily inconsistent, hence unsound.

[Free Arabian Nation]

The difference is that the majority of guesses that scientists make are (while not 100% proven), backed by some form of science. Whereas the claims of religion have no such basis.

And how can you 100% trust science? Isn't science just a bunch of writings from strangers?

Isn't the bible?

[Genivaria]

Are ya'll muthafuckers talkin SCIENCE!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTXTeAt2mpg

[Free Arabian Nation]

Are ya'll muthafuckers talkin SCIENCE!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTXTeAt2mpg

Damnit, I was expecting the Bill Nye theme. Not this neeeeeerd stuff

[Tarsonis]

Multiverse theorists would disagree.

Inasmuch as such actually exist: no, they wouldn't.

Multi-verse theory necessarily posits existence beyond the universe, otherwise there’s no multiverse.

In ability to observe is not prove of nonexistence.

It is, however, extremely strong evidence of non-existence.

It really isn’t.

Sciencd is quite effective, but it has its limits. As I pointed out with the multiverse bit you subscribe to strict empiricism, but that’s not a position universally held by atheists let alone theists.

What you just said is "I'm ignoring all of the evidence because I say so", wrapped up in fancy words.

I’m not ignoring evidence, because there’s no evidence to ignore.

[Tarsonis]

You as well are operating under the paradigm of "By nature, therefore not by God." which wouldn't compute to us.

This is you stating that you are assuming your conclusion, and not actually answering the question at all.

this is you interjecting yourself into a dialogue, and incorrectly breaking up a post to tilt at a point of your own invention. I’m addressing a particular point they made that “people doing things isn’t God”

People doing the works of the Lord, i.e feeding the hungry, doesn't remove God from the equation. God doesn't work by miracles alone, but by and through people, and yes even atheists. "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." Romans 2:14.

Yes, it does. The world would look no different with this "god" removed. Thus, this "god" isn't there.

the world wouldn’t exist without God, so no. Incorrect.

So for us, whenever we see people doing these great things we also see God in their works.

That's just... ungrateful.

Only to you. It doesn’t take away anything from the person to acknowledge God working through them.

As unreliable as it can be, witness testimony is still, in fact, evidence.

Not testimony of this form.

Yes, even in this form.

The existence of a Soul is Christian teaching. The proof of its existence, is predicated on the existence of God. The demand to prove souls exists is red herring, and thus not actually meriting a legitimate response.

You have used the claim that souls exist in an attempt to establish the existence of your god. Your reasoning is circular.

On the contrary, I’m pointing out that the belief in the soul is a natural extension from a belief in God. Thus, proving the soul’s existence or non existence is a pointless endeavor.

It's not unsound either.

Yes, it is. Absolutely and completely so. You've assumed a naked contradiction, and therefore your system of reasoning is necessarily inconsistent, hence unsound.

I’ve asumed no contradiction. God created the universe, thus all things natural flow from God. There is no contradiction, that’s really just modus ponens. The existence of God is neither conclusively provable nor disprovable, through testing, but can be validly surmised through the application of reason. You may disagree with said reasoning but that really can’t be helped. Having come to the conclusion that God exists, my position is perfectly sound and valid. That you’ve come to a different conclusion doesn’t invalidate mine.

[Hanafuridake]

Firstly, let’s clarify. there’s plenty of evidence for a God.

Which God though? I know you're going to answer the Christian God, but the existence of a metaphysical entity that can be called God would not be proof there is an anthropomorphic creator who inspired people to write the Bible. You can use every argument for God to make the same case for Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Shintō, or other religions' God rather than your specific one.