Hi Ed. Good to see you posting again. Liking the wild beard! Here's a wee response from one of my digital friends who can word things a lot better than I can, but is saying all the things that I think. Edward, I appreciate you sharing your personal concept of God. As an agnostic atheist and scientist, I have some thoughts on your ideas:
1. Your starting point about "something rather than nothing" is intriguing, but it's important to note that "nothing" in a physical sense is a complex concept that physicists are still grappling with. The apparent dichotomy between "something" and "nothing" may be an oversimplification.
2. Equating the cause of existence with "God" is a significant leap. While the question of why there is something rather than nothing is profound, attributing it to a deity doesn't actually explain the mechanism or provide testable hypotheses.
3. Your concept of God as reality itself resembles pantheism, which faces its own philosophical challenges. It's unclear how this God-as-reality can have agency or will, as you later suggest.
4. The idea of everything being "consubstantial" with God is interesting but lacks empirical support. From a scientific perspective, we understand the universe as composed of fundamental particles and forces, not a divine substance.
5. Rejecting creation ex nihilo while maintaining belief in the Trinity creates an internal tension in your theology that's hard to reconcile.
6. The concept of God as "self-existent" and "eternal" raises the question: why can't the universe itself have these properties? This avoids multiplying entities unnecessarily.
7. Your hierarchical view of "figurations" seems to blend scientific concepts of complexity with religious ideas in a way that's not clearly defined or testable.
While your perspective is thought-provoking, from a scientific standpoint, it doesn't provide testable hypotheses or explanations for observed phenomena. It also raises more questions than it answers about the nature of reality and existence.
As an agnostic atheist, I find that scientific inquiry, while it doesn't answer all questions, provides a more robust and verifiable framework for understanding our universe. However, I respect your right to your beliefs and appreciate the thought you've put into developing this personal concept.
I don't think they are fantasy - they are subjective beliefs, yes. But not fantasy, as it is possible for them to be true
A real fantasy would be 2+2=60
Something that has no basis in rational thought
I know you won't believe this but I believe God wants to have a relationship with all of his humans so has made it so that we can know him, if we want to
This is a non-scientific belief but I don't think it is worthless, it is simply in a different category to scientific conclusions
Anyways, to quote John Wesley, the great Methodist, I think we will have to "agree to disagree"
It has been fun and productive talking to you, to quote Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpens iron" and I have found our little exchange to be most useful
Not going to even bother responding to your message about my smaller post (Damn it's so difficult to track posting and refer to them on this system) Most of the time you live in the same shared objective reality as me and the rest of humanity, but when it comes to your god and your religion, you suddenly put reality behind you and live in a dream world which has value only to yourself. I have no problems at all with that, and you're totally entitled to that. What I have a problem with is you presenting your god and religion as objective reality. It borders on offensive and incredibly arrogant. If you presented it as your dream world, or your fantasy, then I'd thoroughly enjoy listening to you sharing that. So that's the way I choose to see your videos. hey're wonderful stories of fantasy that I can see you get a lot from. So enjoy them. Just don't try to impose them onto my objective reality as if they are real. They're not. Each to their own.
"One deals with objective reality, the other with fantasy and fiction"
LOL, nope
There are other ways of knowing besides science
Science only deals in local truths, it cannot comprehend higher truths
"objective reality" is a human construct, it is made by human minds, by those who occupy a certain paradigm and that's all it is - a paradigm of thinking, it is not thinking itself
To me the world seems more amazing if you think there is a God, it adds an extra layer of majesty
But I'm not going to preach to you as I think that would be disrespectful and also futile
We're all different, I wouldn't want everyone to be the same and think the same - things would get boring very quickly if that happened!
Thanks for the reply... I think in some ways we're slightly closer than we were initially. Which is good. Loads of things still stick out that I really don't agree with, but I think it's a bit pointless going back & forth on every one of them. A couple that really stuck in my throat though were; "It is possible to do both – two paradigms in our minds just like two hands at the end of each of our arms - the question may be, which of these two hands is the dominant hand, or is it best to be ambidexterous? (to stretch the metaphor!) " They are just too dissimilar for me to agree with that. One deals with objective reality, the other with fantasy and fiction. Don't misunderstand me, some of the most lovely people I've known are religious people, and you're amongst them. But being a loving compassionate empathetic person doesn't require any supernatural or paranormal input at all. So if we were up shit creek without a paddle in this real objective world and needed to find ways out of our predicament - whatever that may be - I'd be surrounding myself with loving compassionate empathetic secular scientists rather than loving compassionate empathetic religious people every time. You can't talk about these two things operating on each of our two arms without stating what it is those hands are doing! if one hand is in objective reality, then it's the only hand actually doing anything. "I’ve read some of a book by Dawkins (I forget its title) in which he talks about the “magic of reality" – by that he doesn’t mean magic as in what wizards or magicians do, but the beauty and awe-inspiring quality it has. And I think he is right, the natural world is beautiful and fascinating – but I think theological metaphysics makes it seem even more amazing" But you can only speak for you Ed. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' etc. Who could ever be arrogant enough to judge that the levels of joy and awe-inspiring beauty being perceived by one person were greater or lesser than by another? Whatever their underlying belief systems! You're actually telling me that what you perceive is more amazing than what I perceive! WOW!
I especially don't like how when I gave reference to proof that it's consciousness and not measurement that collapses the wave function by means of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment that my comments were not analyzed, but ignored. And I must say that the terms atheist and agnostic are incongruent and cannot be used in tandem. You are either athiest or agnostic. Facts 💯
OK, since you don't like the AI, I'm going to spend the time and respond myself to your points one by one. 1) "How on Earth does the scientific method cause social cohesion? – except between scientists who have a shared interest in it! – but socially, it does not do that, it is a tool and nothing more. Culture is what binds, and religion comes under culture, in my opinion" So I don't think science contributes to 'social cohesion' in the same way as religion or culture. But I most certainly think id DOES do so by: Shared knowledge and understanding. Students, professors, graduates of big universities make social cohesion when they share their common understandings and knowledge of science. I believe the scientific approach to problem solving is often used in addressing societal challenges which unite people who are chasing the same goals, Like climate change for example. Science is used widely to bring together people and society around issues regarding climate change. Peer reviewing and publishing, findings are shared and falsified by the global scientific community ensuring rigerous evaluation and results about things that bring community together socially. These are just a few I can think of, obviously there'll be more and obviously there are ways the science can NOT bring about social cohesion in the way religious and cultural groups can. But there are also many secular groups and organisations that do exactly the same things as religious groups. Like the humanist society and others that are secular but welcome people of all faiths and beliefs, like Network for dialogue, Foundation for intercultural and interreligious dialogue initiatives, New unity, and many organisations which equally support those with secular and religious backgrounds and beliefs. These science based or science inclusive organisations are very clearly displaying social cohesion and are definitely not 'just tools and nothing more!' 2) "Science is only a tool, no matter what Chat GPT thinks. Science is a good tool, but I think a cold and amoral master. I think Chat GPT is invested in religion being stupid and science totally awesome. Many people who are religious are curious about how the world works and are happy to embrace science. Science tells us how and I think that’s really cool. But beyond that I don’t think it is much use." I couldn't disagree more strongly Ed! I do however agree that science is an incredibly good and powerful tool. That much we agree on, but it's so much more than that! Science, or the scientific method, rational skeptical thinking is a whole mindset. It's a source of raw inspiration. Thinking in the scientific way engenders (that's a big word for me!) curiosity, creativity a sense of awe and can be deeply fulfilling emotionally. Science is driven and powered by the human qualities of love, deep curiosity, a need for rational and logical explanations. Also you are really reading things into all the posts I make and twisting them to look different to what they actually are. Every last response I've had from the AI has VERY CLEARLY given BOTH SIDES of the coin. That's on thing that AI's do really well, they don't take sides, they just provide balanced and non-bias information. But as I've told you before, the responses I've posted here aren't all 100% AI. I have edited them and in some I have removed the obvious support for the religious and spiritual angle, as that's the angle you are making and have already stated many times. But that doesn't negate the scientific angle or any of the points that the AI and I have put together. 3) "Atheism is a disbelief in God. That’s all it is. And I think that a disbelief is a kind of belief. It is a statement about reality that one thinks is true – “there is no such thing as God”" That's a commonly held understanding of atheism. But it's way more nuanced than that. Firstly I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic atheist, and there's a big difference. Most atheists make a statement or claim that god does not exist. Other atheists simply lack a belief that god exists, but make no claims about it. Most agnostic atheists - like me - have not shut the doors to there being a god, or the paranormal or the supernatural, and will be at the front of the queue to worship and repent when someone provides the proof for the existence of that god, paranormal or supernatural event. I've lived nearly 66 years and not one single iota of evidence has ever come my way in any shape or form. BUT THERE COULD BE A GOD!
4) "The concepts of panentheism, divine substance, and the Trinity lack empirical evidence. In science, we seek observable, testable phenomena to build our understanding of the universe.” – yet science cannot tell us why things are, what is behind the physical world, or what is good/virtuous and what the meaning of life is." This one I 100% agree with ! YAY!🍾 It's us humans who decide what's 'good/virtuous' As for 'why things are, what is behind the physical world, and what the meaning of life is,' ABSOLUTELY NO ONE NO SCIENTIST NO RELIGIONS PERSON NO ONE KNOWS THE ANSWERS TO THOSE THINGS But science is constantly working towards some of them and every day is gaining ground and understanding and able to falsify and back up it's discoveries and correct the things it discovers it's been mistaken about in the past. 5) "A “testable hypothesis” is a feature of enquiring about the nature of natural phenomena. It cannot be applied to fields such as ethics. Or politics. It has many uses but I don’t think it has a place on any pedestal." I agree with you that testable hypotheses are the bread and butter of natural sciences. It's how we figure out if our ideas about the physical world hold water. But here's the thing - this approach isn't totally useless in other areas like ethics or politics.
Think about it this way: While we can't run a lab experiment to determine if a policy is "good" or "bad," we can still use scientific thinking to inform our decisions. For example, we might scientifically test how a new education policy affects student performance. It's not perfect, but it gives us some solid ground to stand on.
That said, I think you've got a point Ed. Ethics and politics involve a lot of stuff that's hard to measure - values, beliefs, cultural norms. But that doesn't mean that any supernatural or paranormal belief does in any way reliably inform ethics and politics!
I think the key is balance. Scientific thinking is a powerful tool, but it's not the only tool in our toolbox. Sometimes we need philosophy, debate, or just good old-fashioned human judgment.
So yeah, maybe the scientific method doesn't deserve a pedestal, but it's still a pretty handy ladder to help us reach higher understanding - even in tricky areas like ethics and politics. 6) "Also, the contrast between the two is not a logical fallacy – it was not an argument, it was a question, a thought experiment. But then Chat GPT is not too bright so wouldn’t pick up on this. Let me put the question to you again: an evil atheist or a good Christian. Which would you choose and why?" I would choose the good christian over the evil atheist because I believe that good is preferable to evil. But I also believe that leadership qualities like integrity, compassion, wisdom, and the ability to make evidence-based decisions - traits that aren't exclusive to any particular belief system would be at the top of my priority list, and as long as whoever it was didn't attempt to force their religious beliefs on others, I'd have no problems. BTW this choice isn't based on the individual's religious beliefs, but on their described moral character. A "good atheist" would be equally preferable to an "evil Christian" in this scenario. 7) "About science and religion conflicting themselves – they don’t have to! If we are sensible and value both." Again I mostly agree with that statement. But I personally don't value any religion, I can see why some do, and that it does bring comfort to many, so I accept the statement as is. 8) "And I would say that for all practical purposes, secular beliefs about ethics exist alongside ethical systems that are religiously inspired. In that they address the same issues – correct action and virtue. Etc." I largely agree with this one too. (Wow doing well here!) Sometimes there are clashes between religious and secular beliefs and ethics though. Religious ethics tend to be way more rigid and unchangeable, whereas secular ethics can be more flexible, but maybe they're not as different as people thing. Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is whichever angle your coming at it from, be it religious or pure reason, as long as the incentive is how to be the best sentient beings that we can, maybe that's what really matters. And if you agree with that last statement, don't forget is was a science based, secular, agnostic atheist who made it!! 🤣😂💓
I'll come back later and address your yet again repeated statements about things we totally agree on, but you continuously repeatedly state as if we don't agree in them.
I'll put it in bold capitals so that you don't hopefully just repeat yourself yet again.
I KNOW THAT SCIENCE CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG. I HAVE NEVER ONCE EVEN INTIMATED SUCH A THING. EXACTLY AS I HAVE NEVER ONCE SUGGESTED THAT SCIENCE CAN TELL US WHAT THE UNIVERSE IS AND WHY IT'S HERE. OR ANY OTHER AS YET UNKNOWABLE THINGS
What I'm saying is that there's nothing else that CAN answer or come anywhere near to answering those questions.
Nothing paranormal or supernatural has ever been proven to exist let alone be able to make any objective statements about anything at all.
Love, empathy, compassion, morality, hatred, judgement and all other emotions are the results of consciousness engendered by living brains with absolutely no need whatsoever for anything supernatural or paranormal.
Apologies if this appears in the wrong place Ed. Again there's no 'reply' option on my screen after your comment, so I've just had to scroll up to find the first 'Add comment' box.... Again this response is AI generated, but I've read through every word in it's response to check it is my feelings and understandings it's posted, I wrote most of this response in my own words, but didn't explain things very well and I think the AI has greatly improved on my version, so here it is...
While religion can unite people, it's not unique in this ability. Science, shared values, and common goals can also bind communities. The etymology of "religion" doesn't validate its claims or necessity.
Science isn't just a method; it's a framework for understanding reality based on evidence. It can inform ethical decisions and personal growth through fields like psychology and neuroscience.
Atheism isn't a belief system, but a lack of belief in deities. It doesn't require complementary ideologies, though many atheists do embrace humanism.
The concepts of panentheism, divine substance, and the Trinity lack empirical evidence. In science, we seek observable, testable phenomena to build our understanding of the universe.
The "mystery" of eternal existence doesn't justify belief. In cosmology, we work with testable hypotheses about the universe's origin and nature.
The false dichotomy between a "sociopathic scientific atheist" and a "nice religious person" is a logical fallacy. Morality isn't exclusive to religion, and scientific understanding doesn't preclude ethical behavior.
While individuals may hold both scientific and religious views, these often conflict when addressing the same questions about reality. Science and religion use fundamentally different epistemologies.
Secular ethics, based on reason and empathy, doesn't require religious framework. It can stand on its own philosophical foundations.
In conclusion, while personal beliefs are individual choices, scientific inquiry remains our most reliable method for understanding the universe and informing our decisions about reality.
Thanks for your reply Dave, I'm off to bed now and will get back to you about it sometime tomorrow!
I am greatly enjoying our exchange
I've been nothing but polite so far Ed, but it appears Tommy doesn't like my contributions and has resorted to direct insults, which says more about him than anyone else I guess. Anyway! this is an interesting exchange Ed!
On "nothingness" and coexisting frameworks: I get what you’re saying about not seeing a conflict between faith-based metaphysics and science, but here’s the thing—science has practical, observable results. It builds spaceships, designs the internet, and performs heart surgeries. Faith-based metaphysics doesn’t produce testable, reproducible outcomes or contribute to those tangible advancements. It may offer personal meaning or a lens through which to interpret existence, but it doesn’t get us to the moon or solve practical problems. That’s why science and metaphysics don’t operate on equal footing—they’re playing entirely different games.
Consciousness and agency: Sure, our brains and consciousness are part of the universe, but saying they’re "properties of The Divine" doesn’t add anything or explain anything. We already know brains produce thoughts, but calling it divine just adds a label, not a mechanism.
Panentheism and choice: Imagining all possible outcomes sounds more like deterministic computation than conscious choice. How does timeless, all-encompassing divinity "act"? If it’s eternal and immutable, how does change happen? It’s a paradox that faith metaphysics struggles to resolve.
Divine substance and natural laws: Saying particles are part of "The Divine" doesn’t explain anything new; it just reframes known facts in spiritual terms. It might feel meaningful, but it doesn’t add any predictive power or clarity.
Trinity and creation: You say it adds meaning, but isn’t that subjective? "Matter in motion" might seem cold to some, but it doesn’t make it meaningless. Meaning comes from us—our experiences, connections, and understanding—not from imposing divine labels.
Eternal existence: If the universe being eternal is hard to accept, why is "The Divine" being eternal easier? Calling it "The Ultimate Unmoved Mover" is poetic, but it’s also just restating a mystery without solving it.
I can see how all you say clearly brings you personal meaning, which is fine. But when it comes to understanding reality or solving practical problems, science remains the better tool—it works because it’s grounded in observation and reproducibility, not belief. OK so two more things... Maybe it'd be better to focus on one item at a time (that's if you want to continue discussion) Going through 7 topics each post is tiring and I think means I give more shallow responses. Secondly I need to reiterate that I'm not in any way dissing you or your beliefs. I guess I'm getting a little paranoid because of the way Tommy has responded to me. But we know each other pretty well so I hope you do know I'm not in any way judging or belittling your beliefs and you right to hold them.
Yeah, could everyone please be nice and civil
I made this forum for discussion, not as a place for a row to break out
Some lovely friends you have Ed! Maybe you might think about restricting the abuse they spew at people.
Hello Dave. I am also having complications posting, it's not letting me reply to your last post directly, to be honest I don't think much of how this forum feature works!
To answer your points:
Nothingness: As far as I’m aware the beliefs I have advanced are based on observable reality as I know it. As I see it, there is nothing stopping all of science (as it is today) being right and what I say being correct. I see no conflict and am not engaging in science denial. I am engaging in faith-based metaphysics and I don’t see why the two cannot co-exist,
Consciousness and Agency: We can only perceive our own individual consciousness. I believe that you have a conscious mind much like my own. And in my own mind I have thoughts and ideas, as do you. I don’t see attributing consciousness to the way in which the universe exists to be a huge leap, as at the end of the day organic minds are consubstantial to the universe. Your conscious mind is ultimately a property of The Divine.
Panentheism: How can it exhibit choice? Agency followed by action upon itself based on reason and knowledge. Just like you and me. And I am pretty sure that such a system could imagine all possible options that it could take, along with the consequences they would have. I see zero conflict between The Divine being timeless/eternal and having free will. Also, the free will are exhibited by figurations of The Divine (God) rather than by The Divine as a whole. The Divine is eternal, and God is a high-level figuration of The Divine whose existence depends on the eternal existence of The Divine.
Divine substance and natural laws: Why should we introduce Divinity if we can understand how particles etc. work? Because it adds to a greater explanation – it states that there is more to existence than meaningless matter in motion.
Trinity and Creation: Attributing such mechanisms to The Trinity shows us that there is more to reality than meaningless matter in motion. It shows that matter in motion (i.e. the physical world) is contingent on some other thing. Which has enormous spiritual and intellectual consequences.
Eternal Existence: The Divine is the ultimate level of existence. All things that exist are emergent from it, it is the Universal Un-Moved Mover. The source of all reality. The ultimate explanation.
Like I said....beer, thc, shepherd's pie. You're a moron 🙄 I don't want to have a response generator debating my experience in communication with God especially with you at the helm. If you can't come up with your own thoughts and words then fuck off. I can debate AI on my own time.
Haha that explains a lot! Maybe you should do a little less 'getting fucb3d up' Tommy You might make a bit more sense of the world around you? Just saying.
I'm too fucked up to read this. It just sounds like mumbo jumbo, word salad or psychobabble and it annoying as fuck. I'm gonna go back to getting fucked up while I cook dinner heyy, maybe I'll even smoke a cigarette in the kitchen 🙃 🤪 😅
The demand for ‘realness’ in communication assumes that our tools define our authenticity.
If I use a pen to write, it's still my words. If I use a calculator for math, the answer remains valid. Using AI like ChatGPT is simply an extension of that—a tool to articulate thoughts or enhance understanding. The ideas I share through it are still mine, guided by my reasoning and intentions.
As for the broader topics: western materialism and eastern idealism merging, the nature of consciousness and wave functions, or the symbolic interpretation of divinity and technology, these are expansive debates worth exploring. But let’s not let the tool of delivery overshadow the content of the conversation.
This is a reply to Ed's last message to me (for some reason I don't seem able to respond directly? Was that a deliberate thing Ed?) So, back to the discussion we're having. Before I carry on, I hope at least you (Ed) know that I'm sincere and I'm not insulting you in any way at all, I'm enjoying our conversation and I respect you having your beliefs. Here are my responses to your last responses.
Nothingness: Fair enough—metaphysical inquiry can be a fascinating way to explore big questions. But I think bridging metaphysics and observable reality requires more than abstract reasoning don't you?
Consciousness and agency: The hard problem of consciousness is indeed a profound mystery. While consciousness arises from the organic matter of the brain (as far as we can tell), labeling ALL matter as "The Divine Substance" seems more like a philosophical interpretation than an explanation. It's the same as saying "The minerals and chemicals that arrive at the smart phone factory are what makes up the smart phone when it's assembled, therefore those minerals and chemicals are smart phones! They're not. How does the claim that that all matter is consciousness enhance our understanding of consciousness? It's quite evidently not. The only consciousness we can perceive of is generated by organic brains in living organisms.
Panentheism: Your framing of God as the universe choosing to exist a certain way is interesting. You obviously no more about the theological aspects of this than I do. That said, this concept raises questions about agency—how can a fundamental, all-encompassing existence exhibit choice? If something is defined as fundamental and all-encompassing, it would include everything that exists—every possibility, law, or phenomenon. For such an entity (like the concept of God in panentheism) to "choose" something, it implies:
Excluding other options: Choice requires selecting one path over others, but a truly all-encompassing entity wouldn't have anything "outside" itself to choose between.
Change or preference: Making a choice suggests some change in state or preference, but something eternal and unchanging (often attributed to God in metaphysics) wouldn’t have new preferences or actions emerge.
This creates conflict between the idea of God as a timeless, all-encompassing existence and the idea of God exhibiting agency or will, which seem to require constraints or alternatives.
Does that make sense?
Divine substance and natural laws: If particles and forces can be understood without invoking divinity, why should we introduce it? Does adding "divine substance" offer predictive or explanatory power?
Trinity and creation: Mechanisms of creation (e.g., cosmology, evolution) are indeed well-studied. But attributing them to the Trinity feels like layering theology onto natural processes without offering new insights or evidence.
Eternal existence: Saying "the eternal exists because it is existence itself" is tautological. Why must existence itself be eternal, rather than an emergent or finite phenomenon?
Clarity: I appreciate your openness! If I have more questions, I’ll be sure to ask.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts—it’s always interesting to hear how others approach these fundamental questions!
If anyone is using Chat GPT to write a response that is an immediate forfeit of character and relevance to Humanity. Let's face it, technology is exponentially advancing and we're going to see some insane things in the next decade, including agents who are more intelligent than the three of us combined. It is a fact that the world cannot continue to develop unless wester Materialism and eastern idealism can join forces due to the understanding that Materialism only proves idealism through the knowledge of how consciousness can change the state of a wave function coalescing it into particles of light and matter through observation. There a many studies that show that it is rightly a function of consciousness and not measurement which collapses the wave function through the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. If it looks like we're about to get taken over by robots and empirical data show that reality is not objective as classical physics describes, then we must ask ourselves if we haven't already been taken over by technology. That Climax is a living universe which could not have been without existence, or, something, rather than nothing. Then there's Jesus. A man inside a Machine inside a God. Just like all of us. This is the Kingdom of God. And I swear to God, Dave if you use Chat GPT one more time during any of our future conversations I will relinquish the shred of intellect I have attributed to you. It's cheating, is an unfair advantage and is not limited by our feeble human minds and exponentially so as each year passes. So stop it and be real. If there is such a thing.
Hello Dave, thanks for your reply, here is my response to the points you made:
Your first point: I don’t see how “nothing” is complex. Because there is not truly any such thing, given that there is something. True nothingness does not exist, indeed empty space is something, that contains various fields and forces and stuff, if I remember correctly.
Your second point: I believe that consciousness and agency are natural phenomena. I think you do too? Given that they are, why shouldn’t reality as a whole be in some way conscious?
Your third point: It is Panentheism, not Pantheism. Pantheism says that reality = god. Panentheism says that reality is God but that God is greater than reality.
Your fourth point: Why couldn’t the divine substance manifest as particles and forces?????
Your fifth point: Why???? The trinity is how something exists and it acted upon itself to create a large high-level figuration: The Universe. I think this fifth point is a real dud.
Your sixth point: The universe is not self-existent and eternal as it is a temporary figuration of The Eternal Divine.
Your seventh point: If you find something I’m saying not clearly defined then either think about it yourself or ask me about it!