I'm not being critical but obviously you are unaware of the difference between faith IN Christ and the Faith OF Christ. Yet people attack Christianity and faith unaware of this essential distinction. — Nikolas

Because the difference is a complete nonsequitor. Come over to my place, move the mountain in front of my house, and I'll change my by your unapproved ways.

I understand what you are saying. You are saying that it is a linguistic nuance, a non-understanding of which is the block that stops the world from becoming Christian.

How many Christians do you know in your immediate circles who never even thought of spotting this distinction, let alone understanding it?

And I really, but really am itching to challenge you to demonstrate that YOU understand the difference, and theh after that demonsrate that your understanding is correct.

One caveat: you are not allowed to use logic, clear thinking of a sound mind, in this endeavour. You have survived and built a huge faith by doing the requirements of the caveat; why stop now? the going is still good, you still are in complete denial of the falsehoods in the bible, so just carry on, and enjoy the ride.

“Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” — Nikolas

You are saying nobody has any faith, not even like a grain of mustard seed. No occurrance of moving mountains by saying a few words, and by saying a few words only, has been demonstrated to move mountains. Not even the bible has any passage of this. So the obvious concluson is that nobody has any faith.

The other conclusion is that whoever considers the bible true, is either incapable of rational thought, or else decides not to practice his god-given duty to use his own brain for its originally intended purpose, for crying out loud.

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16). — Nikolas

Written by a technically illiterate person. 1. He says the same thing three times. 2. He does not realize that he just did that. 3. he calls the one and very same thing all these three: the premise, the reasoning and the conclusion. 4. He (the person who originally wrote this passage) does not realize that he is a blockhead.

Presumably, everyone has the "right to property." The problem is some people don't have any. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm sorry, but while all along this post you're right, you are not making an argument that has any effect on mine. Rights do not equate to actual states of being. And rights do not mean that you can only have that right if you have an object to apply it to. Case in point is your example: right to property, but what if you don't have any. Well, not having property does not negate the right to property at all. Once the non-possessor of property acquires property, he or she has a right to own it.

The rights to own property is also universal, despite its non-universal applicability.

The right is used in justification of an essentially selfish position, though it is a right to which supposedly all are entitled. — Ciceronianus the White

You said it. Everyone is EQUALLY equipped with the right to be selfish. EQUALLY. Whether you call it a right to own property or the right to be selfish, it is the same thing. No matter how you slice it, it is equally given to everyone -- the right to own, not the objects to own.

I doubt that precision-of-definition is what you find objectionable. Instead, it's the materialist dogma that dismisses any hint of preternatural phenomena. — Gnomon

You are actually almost right about that.
I reject any hint of supernatural explanations of phenomena.
And you're right, it is my beleif and if you like, dogma.

It is useful dogma. If I did not have that dogma, and most people did not have it, then we would still be burning old ladies as witches at the stake. We'd tie women into immobility, if they were suspected of being witches, and throw them into the sea; and we'd beleive that if they float, they are witches, and if they sink and die, they are not witches.

Furthermore we'd believe in the existence of the Holy Grail, in the existence of the Stone of the Wise, that turns everything into gold. We would believe that seances produce a conversation between the living and the dead. We would believe in many, many things that scientists who start with nothing but believeing my dogma also, have many times debunked each time completely.

So yes, you're right, it is my dogma that is driving me, but this dogma is useful, has proved to be useful and true.

-------------------------

On the other hand you define metaphysics that allows interpretation of sub-particle activities to be of the same value and service to mankind, as witch burning and seances. THIS is why I object to your definition. Never mind my dogma. In my books the two are separate systems of thought, and one describes reality, the other does not. The two have no common things in their mechanisms. Yet your definition allows that. Therefore it is not a good definition, because it equates disparate, non-related elements in this world: solid, observed elements (QM) to another element that is sheer fantasy, disproved fiction and intentional fraud.

From that all-loving, omnibenevolence, follows god's unwillingness to intervene in the affairs of the world and hence the evil - moral and natural - we see in it. — TheMadFool

I don't understand the logical link you employ, and I think it is not true, when you say (paraphrased) that "omnibelenevolence necessitates non-interference." No, it does not necessitate that. Why would that be necessary?

If god is omnipotent, he could design ways to keep everyone happy and nobody harmed. Like I said, even a five-year-old child can create a mental image of such a world... why can't then god? I don't think this is a contradction at all, it is a quality of omnipotence to create worlds and the attributes of the worlds at his will and motivation, and one of the motivations in omnibenevolence. Yet the world does not reflect to be a system with benefits to all. Not only are we NOT equal, and not only do we, creatures, not consider each other equal, but because of that, we make each other suffer. Where has the omnibenevolence gone in this system? Nowhere. It has never been part of the system. Therefore god is either not omnibenevolent, or the world is not created by god.

I think you've misunderstood the analogy. When I refer to God as a parent, I mean only in the sense of faer love - all encompassing - for faer children - all the creatures in the universe. — TheMadFool

It is interesting how little credit you give me in understanding your concept of parallel between god and a parent.

My point was you can't STOP suddenly in this analogy. "Parent loves her children equally, gives them equal shares of her love" is NOT equivalent, yet you make it equivalent, to "Parent gives resources to her much beloved children, then lets them fight among themselves who gets what; parent at this point does not interfere." Well, a parent DOES interfere, and god, apparently, if he existed, does NOT interfere.

All I am saying is that the parent analogy does not work. You borrow some parts of the parent analogy, and you reject another part. That's NOT how you employ analogy. It's reminiscent of the cherry-picking nature of bible studies.

Consequently, what you seem to not understand, is that an omnibenevolent god would not let suffering happen in a world he created. If precious resources are fought for, to the loss even of life and to the loss of great suffering of some participants,then it is obviously the creator's fault, not the participants' fault, that they need to fight for resources.

If god loves the ebola virus as much as humans, and you are not mistaken, then god would have created a world in which ebola viruses thrive happily and the humans thrive happily. "The lion lies down with the kid." Obviously on some level this world arrangement exists. Only an evil-minded creator would have created some world in which things don't work that way. And our world does not work that way. Therefore:

either god is not omnipotent, or omnibenevolent, or the creator.

I really, really, don't understand how you can't see this. EVIL SUFFERING EXISTS ONLY BEAUSE IF CREATION TRULY HAPPENED IN THE HANDS OF A GOD, THE GOD WAS NOT OMNIBENEVOLENT OR ELSE HE WAS INCAPABLE TO FULFIL HIS OMNIBENEVOLENT INTENTIONS. EITHER HE COULD BUT DECIDED NOT TO CREATE A GOOD WORLD, OR ELSE HE WANTED TO, BUT WAS INCAPABLE TO CREATE A GOOD WORLD. OTHER POSSIBILITIES DON'T EXIST.

I am afraid you and I are getting further and further away from understanding the other.

What a shame.

re your op your only support is your good parent analogy and thus your failure too A parent will alleviate harmful competition among her kids. God does not. Therefore gods does not do his job right as a parent thus he tolerates evil and he is responsible for evils happening. Sorry I’m typing from a phone.

Ergo, omnibenevolence doesn't necessarily translate into a desire to end evil. — TheMadFool

It does not "translate". It "means".

If you are omnibenevolent, you are incapable of seeing, creating, or tolerating suffering. This is the meaning of the word, not the interpretation of its meaning.

The sad truth is, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and the state of the physical world point logically at a discrepancy that can't be explained.

You are resorting to the old "interpretation" tactic of philosophy of Christians and of other religionists, in which you claim that what you see and hear is not what you see and hear but something else, which is in fact different from what you see and hear.

Just as God cannot create a square circle, there may be consequences involved in eliminating evil that even God cannot avoid. — Partinobodycular

You are simply providing here an elegant proof of others' proposition, that god is either not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent. You are not refuting this proposition, but help it. "God cannot create (a certain thing)..." means he is not omnipotent. Period.

That's the unknown, does evil allow for the existence of something even more valuable then the cost of evil itself? — Partinobodycular

C'mon. Even a five-year-old child can conjure up a Utopian world in which everything works, and yet it lacks evil and suffering.

Why couldn't god? He could not, despite his INFINITE wisdom and knowledge? That's too rich.

In my beliefs god simply could not because the world is not a thing God created, as he has the potential to not even to exist.

If god is omnipotent then nothing can compel him to act in a certain way, — TheMadFool

Nothing? NOTHING?

Not anything.

Not his will, not his intentions, not his desires, not his motivations.

In fact, you are saying he acts randomly, as nothing is causational in his behaviour.

Interesting proposition.

You may simply disregard my post here, as it says nothing else, that I would consider responding to your post way too tiresome than to have a positive payoff for me to engage in it.

I am sorry, but your arguments are a bit contrived, I believe, in this response to my opinion. I don't see the validity in your counter-points.

However, and unfortunately, it would be a task too tedious and to me too boring, to point all these out to you. Therefore I shan't attmept to do so. This is unfortunate, because this way I can't do more than merely state "I disagree".

I refuse to examine and respond to your counter points, because I come here, basically, and truthfully, to have fun by exercising my mind. It is a good mental work-out, and responding to your counter points would represent something that is not a healthy, refreshing, mind-building workout.

You may simply disregard my post here, as it says nothing else, that I would consider responding to your post way too tiresome than to have a positive payoff for me to engage in it.

How does Aristotle define metaphysics? :
What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself. Perhaps the starting point of Aristotle's metaphysics is his rejection of Plato's Theory of Forms. — Gnomon

To my knowledge (and please correct me if you are sure I am wrong) Aristotle does NOT define his use of the word "Metaphysics". It is the name of a chapter in his book, and he lists a bunch of relationships between things, but these relationships are not a coherent unit, they contain disparate, from each other independent elements. He named this chapter metaphysics because it literally followed the chapter "physics" in his book, and metaphysics meant to him, "after physics" which had no meaning, other than "this chapter is after the chapter "physics"". It's only his posterity who give reason to believe that he meant some certain thing with the name "metaphysics."

I think your quote is a mistaken interpretation. I could be wrong, I stand corrected if you can show I am wrong.

Isn't that how philosophy is done : first define your terms, then make your argument? — Gnomon

Yes, you're right. There is agreeable philosophy, and then there are disagreeable definitions. I find yours -- pardon me, this is not personal, at all, we are arguing concepts here, not personal preferences or personalities -- objectionable for one reason and one reason only. You take a term that has been given some kind of aura, that is pervasive in its usage. Then you give it a very restrictive meaning, which is very far removed from the generally accepted consensus of its meaning.

But that is not my objection. Freud had his ID, Ego and Superego, Plato had his Ideals, Kant had his Kategorical Imperative. Fine, you have your Metaphysics. The problem is, that your definition has no implication outside its immediate implication. "Metaphysics are things we can only see with our minds eyes. Therefore quantum mechanics is replete with metaphysical ideals." It is true, very true, I wouldn't argue against it; but it does nothing else but state the obvious in a way different from the normally accepted way of saying the same obvious thing.

So... QM is full of instances of things visible only with our minds' eyes. True. Then what?

Where is the insight in this? What is the usefulness of stating this?

Yes, Ciceronius, it is interesting that rights are a new concept, and as you pointed it out, the existence of rights gives you the right to be selfish.

I also like the question, "What's left of the right?"

1. The American right has been destroyed. What remains extant of its one time might?
2. If you consider a smooth transition of parliamentary sitting arrangement of elected representatives advocating from socialist (egalitarian) ideals to capitalistic (exploitive) ideals, then you can ask, is the person to his left still on the right?
3. A heavy weight boxing champion is about to retire, and has a match posted what people believe is too late in his career. "What's left of his right?" promoters ask, as if trying to guess or measure up the one-time strength of his world-famous right hook.
4. The English Lord discusses with his manager which manservant to let go to ease up his payroll. "Yeah, the one who keeps on saying "right on, Sire". Who is on his left?" "They are facing us, Sire, so to us the question becomes, who is on first." "erm, Simpkins, quite, quite."

Seriously speaking, rights given, as much as they selfishly serve the self, if they are given in equal measures to a group of people, then theoretically the rights do not amount to any selfish advantage. For instance, in America all adults have the right to vote. (I don't know if this is true, but let's assume it is for the sake of my example. For instance, I don't know if prison populations have this right.)

Does Paul have more advantage than Peter, in this instance? I don't think so. So rights distributed evenly to a population serve different purposes than to advantage only select members of it.

"You have the right to remain silent." This is another example of the rights of a population, the population of people under arrest. They all have the rights to this, there is no discrimination to losing the rights for any reason. It is a perpetual, non-evolving, free-of-charge rights of people who are being arrested.

So... while you are right that rights have a potential of serving selfish causes, if they are distributed equally, like I said, they don't provide any personal advantage within a population.

I don't see a paradox here, as long as paradox means an impossibility to believe both at the same time and in the same respect.

I will treat your post and the matter in the spirit of the clarification I provided here.

I deny there is a paradox. Plato thinks the real world is a world of perfect, everlasting, ideals; Camus thinks the reality is impossible to fathom. Camus does not deny the existence of ideals, as he makes no claim about reality (other than that it's impossible to learn).

Plato makes no suggestion that anyone has ever gone to and came back from the real world to our shadow world; he offers no transportational methods how to explore the world of ideals. He beleives we can discover and explore that world, but it's a theoretical beleif, without any physical supporting evidence.

If something has no supportive evidence to its credit that makes it available to belief that it exists, then that thing is a dogma/heuristic/superstion and has nothing to do with whether it exists or not. Therefore making claims abou that world's specfics is an insane hoax.

This connects the world of the wall pics to the world of the inscrutable. Neither has been discovered; neither has a clear path of discovery penned.

1. Stating details is equivalent to going out on a limb. They country is divided into more than two general interst groups. If you state something specific, most likely it will only humour one specific group, but anagonize all other groups. This is detrimental in a democracy, where the sheer number of votes decides election outcomes.
2. Accountability is a big factor, too. It is not a politically astute move to take on accountability when all others don't.
3. Impossibility. Political leaders these days spend their entire time balancing the disbursement of precious resources, that is, resources that everyone wants, but not everyone gets. This is no trivial feat. Situations may change right after the election, and the promise of factual execution may become totally impossible.
4. Lack of time and opportunity for preparation. Candidates are too busy to garner votes, they can't and must not be bogged down with making plans for the future in detail.

Faith in one[/b]'SELFelf,
faith in ones OWN experienceS — Chris1952Engineer

How can you have faith in the existence of these?

Are we talking about the same thing when we say "faith"?

To me faith is belief, particularly at times religious/dogmatic/superstitious belief.

Do you believe (that is, not know, but believe) that you exist?

HOW do youPersonally interpret: g\G/g'S ???? — Chris1952Engineer

Interesting question. I believe that god may exist, and equally likely that god does not exist.

I also believe that any claim on the nature of god is a hoax, as god (in case god exists) never gave any evidence of its own qualities.

This should answer your question, and the direct answer is, of course, that I don't believe a god exist, although it may; and I don't interpret something that does not exist, and I don't interpret existing things that I have no evidence of whatsoever.

Which do you prefer : the simple vernacular definition of MP, or the various abstruse mathematical definitions? — Gnomon

As I pointed it out in the next post by me, I think metaphysics as a field of study does not exist. Therefore it defies definition. Metaphysics in the Classical sense is a collection of thoughts that were not proper to include in the physics section, but were mentioned in the after-physics section; and they are not related to each other.

In modern times metaphysics has gained a meaning of its own, detaching itself fromi its original etimology. But because there is no metaphysics, the new definitions vary, and have different scopes and meanings.

There is chaos on the metaphysics' interpretation, because defining metaphysics is anyone's game. There is no consensus.

Therefore I reject any claim of metaphysics before a definition is given for it.

You, Gnomon, were kind enough to provide your own definition. It is not a faulty definition, since no consensus has been reached. But it is a rather useless definition, because it allows you to claim the presence of metaphysics in quantum mechaincs. Per your definition, it is perfectly valid. However, many people immediately conjure concepts of what metaphysics are, and disregard your defintion, and they therefore reject your claim.

You claim is valid as long as your reader accepts your definition.

Gnomon's definition" is completely compatible with modern quantum physics. — Gnomon

I agree. So totally agree with you. And that's why I stated that your definition is not exclusive. You must read Aristotle to see this.

Thanks, jgill. Impressing you I consider a real accomplishment. It's accomplishments like these makes participating on this forum worthwhile for me.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the sensations you will experience from these experiments are the result of gravity acting on your arms (#1) or your whole body (#2) — EricH

You're right that that the feelings are the results of gravitational force. But the result is an interpretation of why you feel these feelings. If you see green, you immediately identify it. If you feel hot, you immediately identify it. If you feel pain, or hunger, you immediately identify it. No interpretation is needed.

As long as you need some interpretation to identify the source of a feeling, you don't actually feel it... you feel the effect of the sounce, not the source directly.

And that's precisely what makes gravity not a feeling, but a thing we see with our minds eye.

In my opinion, anything that you need your mind's eye to see because otherwise you wouldn't see it, is not a feeling you directly experience.

This is exemplified in the case of gravity by realizing that mankind lived with gravity since day one, but it was only conceptualized as a concept in the sixteen hundreds.

I understand that metaphysics means "after physics" only denoted by Aristotle for the readers that it is a section in his book that comes after the section "physics". I don't know what Aristotle wrote in the chapter "metaphysics". All I know that it is not a unified concept, such as physics or chemistry or biology; it is, instead, thoughts on regularities and observations about the world, that do not fit in the chapter "metaphysics" as a topic.

However, posterity, as a trend, does not speak Greek, and they wrongly figured that metaphysics is a concept of something, and that something is included in the chapter "metaphysics". This is a misconception. The contents of metaphysics is a mish-mash, a junkyard of disparate pieces of thougts. It contains parts that are not related to other parts at all and whatsoever; however, modern English language distorted the meaning of "metaphysics" and thus distorted the philosophy of Aristotle.

This is a shamble, a bimmbele-bammbele, a durr-bele, but I can't help it as a person alone all by myself.

Subsequently, many people started to IMAGINE what metaphysics as a full concept means; they created schools of thought on what they thought MP meant; one of the schools of thought is to define MP as

Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. — Gnomon

There is no rule on creating schools on a misunderstanding or on complete ignorance. I don't support the concept, of doing just that, personally, and I am only saying that for the record.

So...is gravity meta-physics? — god must be atheist

Is talking to spirits in seances meta-physics? Yes. Is gravity meta-physics? If you consider, and only consider the definition that Gnomon has used, then yes. To refresh:

Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. — Gnomon

Is this how everyone understands what metaphysics is?

I think Gnomon is right, if you consistently apply the definition quoted. "Things we can only infer, but but not feel" is what I think "things we can only see with the eyes of our mind" means. And if you accept this definition, then Gnomon is absolutely, irrefutably right in calling QM and physical properties that are theorized all MP (metaphysics).

However, I resent the implication that I understand talking to spirits, only because I understand wave function. If the expression "MP" as Gnomon suggests were acceptable universally, then it would be clear that I understand some MP concepts yet I don't understand some other MP concepts, furthermore, I declare they are not believable (such as seance parties).

I think Gnomon's definition is a subset of the definition of theoretical physics and a subset of the definition what must be truly metaphysics. Both have this part. But it's not enough; the phenomenon is not exclusively worded for its definition. A good definition will not only say one or another or a few parts of the quality of a concept; it will state all properties, that are part of the concept, but they also delineate the concept from all other concepts we have in our minds.

So instead of arguing with Gnomon, I suggest that whoever is interested in carrying on a meaningful conversation, must create a different defintion from Gnomon's for "MP".

You can feel gravity. — EricH

How do you do that.

I would argue that faith does not exclude knowledge. — Chris1952Engineer

How would that argument sound like?

My argument that faith excludes knowledge is based on faith being unreliable, at best with a completely random rate of success of getting predictions right, and getting its wishes fulfilled. Knowledge has a much better batting average than faith.

Take two examples. I have faith that god exists (batting average: 0.500) or else that god does not exist (batting average: 0.500). I have knowledge that I am me, and that I am not somebody else. Batting average: 1.000.

This is a huge divider between knowledge and faith. Faith is no form of knowledge. it is a form of a guessing game, with betting on an outcome without knowledge what the outcome will be.

I was pre-empting an argument that any finite suffering will always be outweighed by the infinite joy of the afterlife. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Okay, thanks. You could have preempted that argument also by saying that little forbidden pleasure in this life would precipitate an endless, enduring, horrible painful state for all eternity by an all-loving, all-powerful god... Christianity and in fact all religions are riddled with self-contradictory philosophy. That's what attracts the followers... the crazier the dogma, the more numerous the fellowship.

without the existence of God how would you have a definite standard to judge evil and if you did, where would it come from? — Ljkp

You give very, very, very little credit to the human mind, to humanity as a viable vital life existence capable of thought, emotions, will, and imagination.

Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. — Gnomon

So...is gravity meta-physics? It is very real to me. And yet it is not something you can see, touch, smell or taste.

Is the physics concept of force, or capacity, or electrical resistance, or wave frequency a metaphysical concept? I would be hard pressed to believe that.

The explanation you gave is not sufficient for me to conceptualize what metaphysics is. I still don't know what it is. It is NOT your fault, and I don't hold you responsible for its existence, and I don't hold you liable to teach me what it is.I have NO CONCEPT what to think when others talk about metaphysics.

So when you say

Quantum mechanics, like any physical theory, comes equipped with many metaphysical assumptions and implications. — Gnomon

then I don't know if it's true or not. Because it contains a phrase which I do not have a clue what it means.

I am not pulling your leg and I am not being obstreperous by purposefully acting stupid. I don't know what metaphysics is, precisely because its definition as per above includes things that I consider real, physical. If it's not physical, and it's physical, then obviously it is nonsense.

I am not saying metaphysics is nonsense. I say that the definition given renders it nonsense.

I have no clue what metaphysics is. It is not defined unambiguously. I can't deal with that.

Says Jesus? — Nils Loc

I said "witten", because the question specifically asked for a written letter. I am getting angry. You can't even differentiate between "say" and "write"?

I am sorry, I feel a heart attack is coming on. I can't handle this. Talking to people who immediately turn "write" to "say".

I apologize. I have to leave this.

Check out the question I answered. I even quoted it for your ease of reference. I am the weird guy who answers questions asked directly and to the point, instead of talking a million different things that have nothing to do with the question, let alone giving a straightforward answer to it.

I can't pretty well advocate violence on this site, as it is against site rules. But violent outbursts, verbal or physical, alleviate anger temporarily. I am not suggesting you do that, but that's the only behaviour I know of that immediately releases the tension.

What letter would Jesus have written? — Nils Loc

"D". This is one letter he would definitely have written.

Looking at the above conversation, man's need to create a branch of thought which is not science, and which endeavours to learn the purpose of physical laws screams at the reader. "Why is gravity a good thing? Is it a good thing in the first place? Why should we accept gravity as presented, and not protest to have it a different way? What is morally good about Laplasse's equation, and why is PV/T = pv/t an evil phenomena? why are we doing physics research into QM, when the whole thing could be so much easier to decide by plebisite?" (SP)

They may be described mathematically as waves, but they are portrayed graphically as balls. — Gnomon

Gnomon, you remind me of the adage, "if someone ascribes an attribute to a system that is not in that system, the person ascribing is most likely very far from understanding that system."

Metaphysics is something I don't understand. I don't even have a remotely useful concept of the concept. So I leave it like that. I don't go comparing metaphysics to thought, to consciousness, to QM, to miracles, because I don't have a working concept of what metaphysics is.

I think those who don't quite have even a rudimentary knowledge of QM or even of classical phyisics, ought not to take ownership of physics, and declare how QM is an explanation to non-phyisics phenonmena.

What? I wasn't disagreeing with you.
I was just clarifying one of my points. — Mijin

thanks.

What's the symbol for a material? — magritte

M, m. It denotes mass. There is no mass without material or matter.

I get your point, I am just answering your question, without any further or ulterior or hidden or implied opinion on your post.

I have supported both your points, Mijin. You are preaching to the choir. I cited the examples PRECISELY and EXCLUSIVELY to support your opinions. It's the second post you put that steers me in the directon that I am already facing. Please relax now.