Existence of God and the Five proofs?

[john_doran]

If we pick number 2 we deny the teaching of the Church that God is revealed through His creation because suddenly a significant aspect of His creation is unobservable and therefore cannot reveal anything to us.

this simply does not follow, because “god is revealed through his creation” does not entail “all of god’s creation is observable to humans at all times”. was the proposition “god is revealed through his creation” false before the invention of the microscope? or the telescope? or…

put more abstractly, “god is revealed through his creation” means: for any thing that is god’s creation, if god is revealed to someone through that thing, then god has been revealed through his creation. which means, again, that as long as some of god’s creation revels him to us, not all of it needs to (though it might).

you might as well argue that the church’s teaching is falsified by the existence of atheists (who do not see god to be revealed through his creation)…

 

[utunumsint]

No, it is not the case. The point of Young’s double slit experiment is that both natures exist for the beam and only when we apply specific observational techniques can we see one or the other nature of the beam, but both natures are present when we are not affecting them by observation. If it were as you suggest, then we would be imparting one or the other of those natures on them by our observation. That in itself would be an act of creation, which is beyond us. Therefore both natures must be present at all times.

Cool. Sounds like the hypostatic union!

Aint nature great!

God bless,
Ut

 

[michael_legna]

michael_legna:

If we pick number 2 we deny the teaching of the Church that God is revealed through His creation because suddenly a significant aspect of His creation is unobservable and therefore cannot reveal anything to us.
john doran:

this simply does not follow, because “god is revealed through his creation” does not entail “all of god’s creation is observable to humans at all times”. was the proposition “god is revealed through his creation” false before the invention of the microscope? or the telescope? or…

Good point! But then for Aquinas’ stake in the argument are we not still left making an appeal to the premise, (which is that axiom about nothing being able to generate or move itself) as the solution to this problem and at the same time be the conclusion to his proof? It seems to make Aquinas’ position functional we have to assume nothing can self generate and then to maintain the conclusion that only God generates (which is just a restatement of the premise) we have to deny everything we cannot understand as being self generating because it contradicts our conclusion.

I mean you ask anyone how to disprove an argument about non-existence and they will tell you go out and get an example of that item, whether it be a unicorn or a UFO or a Big Foot monster. If someone proposes an argument against their existence all you have to do to refute it is bring one in. But in this case we say oh know, it may just be that we cannot see what is driving it, if fact that has to be the answer because it violates our premise, which just happens to be a form of our conclusion.
john doran:

put more abstractly, “god is revealed through his creation” means: for any thing that is god’s creation, if god is revealed to someone through that thing, then god has been revealed through his creation. which means, again, that as long as some of god’s creation revels him to us, not all of it needs to (though it might).

you might as well argue that the church’s teaching is falsified by the existence of atheists (who do not see god to be revealed through his creation)…

These are both good points, but they highlight the difference between the Church teaching and what the Catechism says when compared to Aquinas’ claim of a proof.

It is fine for only parts of creation to reveal God to us, and it is fine that only part of humanity (the non-atheists) sees God in His creation for them to be converging and convincing arguments. But for something to be a proof it must cover all of nature, otherwise we could argue that only part of nature needs to have a prime mover or first cause. For something to be a proof it also has to apply to all men (as Aquinas’ proof is clearly aimed at the atheists) as long as they are equipped to enter into a logical debate.

 

[michael_legna]

Cool. Sounds like the hypostatic union!

Aint nature great!

God bless,
Ut

Close but I don’t think we understand the mystery of the Trinity well enough to be so bold as to claim that God is both the Father, or Son or Holy Spirit and at the same time is not the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit. Maybe it is the same as the relationship between particles and waves in a beam of energy or matter, but maybe it isn’t either. Still it is an interesting idea, but also could be a slippery slope to error to go any further than to say “it sounds like…”.

But then this was not the point. I was not using Young’s Double Slit experiment to refute Aquinas’ five points. It was brought up to show that it is possible to be S and ~S at the same time.

 

[vz71]

Is there motion outside the universe? How can there be with no space to move through? It becomes a meaningless concept.

Nothingness is not a meaningless concept.
It is simply the abcence of anything else.
Failure of your ruler to measure is a failing of the measure, not the concept.

How do you know this is limited to only one thing? That is the point of the argument - to prove by process of elimination (by calling on the inherent characteristics of nature) to show that only one thing is left to do all these things. But you cannot use the conclusion you seek in order to prop up the argument you are making. That is referred to as assuming the consequence. It is a fallacious form of argument.

No, there is no assumption at all of the sort.
The science that we have simply cannot recreate circumstance outside of the universe. Thus we are only left with our own experience and laws of nature (of course at this extreme, your mileage may vary concerning these laws).
And what we do know is three fold.

1. nothing comes from nothing.
2. the universe is something.
3. therefore, there is something ouside of and greater then the universe that started it all.

I can see your difficulty here. Science does not want to admit a point where nothing existed. But the facts remain. The very being of the universe speaks of the fact.
The 5 statements set forth very well speak to the facts.

 

[utunumsint]

Close but I don’t think we understand the mystery of the Trinity well enough to be so bold as to claim that God is both the Father, or Son or Holy Spirit and at the same time is not the Father, or the Son or the Holy Spirit. Maybe it is the same as the relationship between particles and waves in a beam of energy or matter, but maybe it isn’t either. Still it is an interesting idea, but also could be a slippery slope to error to go any further than to say “it sounds like…”.

But then this was not the point. I was not using Young’s Double Slit experiment to refute Aquinas’ five points. It was brought up to show that it is possible to be S and ~S at the same time.

The comment was tongue in cheek. I know when I’m out of my depth and I’m certainly not going to build a theology around the idea. When dealing with theological matters, it is always important to understand the boundaries and limits between each discipline and to respect those limits.

By the way, the hypostatic union has to do with the incarnation. Here is a definition of the concept from New Advent.

A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human

This is a strictly theological concept. But it is nice to know that there are other things in our own universe that have two natures.

God bless,
Ut

 

[michael_legna]

utunumsint:

By the way, the hypostatic union has to do with the incarnation. Here is a definition of the concept from New Advent.

Of course - silly me.

 

[michael_legna]

vz71:

Nothingness is not a meaningless concept.
It is simply the abcence of anything else.
Failure of your ruler to measure is a failing of the measure, not the concept.

The failure of measurement also means failure of our language to place a descriptor such as travel on the environment (if you can call nothingness an environment) because travel is defined based on distance which requires measurement.

vz71:

And what we do know is three fold.

1. nothing comes from nothing.
2. the universe is something.
3. therefore, there is something ouside of and greater then the universe that started it all.

We know these only because we claim them a priori. This is not real knowledge merely definition based on our past experiences which can be shown to be wrong or incomplete at any moment by new observations. It is in this way that they are assumptions or premises.

vz71:

I can see your difficulty here. Science does not want to admit a point where nothing existed. But the facts remain. The very being of the universe speaks of the fact.

No, the whole point of my arguments and examples of scientific phenomena speaks to the fact that science does recognize a point where nothing exists and in two specific instances of this it has also observed self generating events in these environments.

 

[punkforchrist]

michael_legna:

Ok, but I am saying more than just that someone who denies proofs of any kind based on empirical evidence. The concept of skepticism applies to Aquinas’ proofs even back in his day, before we understood the misconceptions about how nature behaves that underlies his premise.

What observations undermine any of his premises? Even on the quantum level, being does not arise from non-being. The only other way to object to the argument is to say that there can be an infinite regress, but that results in all kinds of absurdities.

I am saying that there are specific issues with Aquinas’ proofs BECAUSE they rely on empirical observations (and our conclusions about the nature of the world around us, and they have those empirical observations wrong.

You are making two points, then. 1) Aquinas’ proofs rely on empirical observation, but observation may be doubted. Therefore, 2) the observations that Aquinas makes may be mistaken.

I agree with this in the sense that we cannot have absolute certainty of observation. However, if we are willing to doubt even the most indubitable conclusions of our senses, then anything goes. It is true that I do not have absolute certainty that I am typing this post on my computer, but to be honest I do not see the significance of admitting that I do not have absolute certainty. Even those who try to reject their observations cannot live without them.

It all gets back to the issue of axioms I think (as one of the other posters zeroed in on). An axiom being a truth we accept as being obvious to the most casual and uninterested observer. Unfortunately we now know that nature cannot be fully understood by such a casual observer and in fact has aspects that only reveal themselves to the most diligent and trained investigations, so that these understandings can be included properly in our language, thinking and axioms.

In what sense do we know that nature is not as we observe it? As stated above, quantum theory does not negate the law of causation, so I do not see any evidence that falsifies Aquinas’ argument.

Blessings

 

[michael_legna]

punkforchrist:

What observations undermine any of his premises? Even on the quantum level, being does not arise from non-being.

Sure that is what the quantum fluctuation is, a process of pair production and annihilation, where particles arise out of the zero point energy and then disappear back into it.

punkforchrist:

You are making two points, then. 1) Aquinas’ proofs rely on empirical observation, but observation may be doubted.

Yes, to the first part, because Aquinas’ five points are based on the similarity between characteristics of nature (the need for a mover or a generator) and these can only be recognized or determined based on observation of creation. But the second issue is unimportant and not needed to show Aquinas’ observations in error.

punkforchrist:

Therefore, 2) the observations that Aquinas makes may be mistaken.

And indeed we know that they are as the events surrounding quantum mechanical and other high energy physics events do not behave in the same way as the macroscopic Newtonian events Aquinas was familiar with.

punkforchrist:

I agree with this in the sense that we cannot have absolute certainty of observation. However, if we are willing to doubt even the most indubitable conclusions of our senses, then anything goes. It is true that I do not have absolute certainty that I am typing this post on my computer, but to be honest I do not see the significance of admitting that I do not have absolute certainty. Even those who try to reject their observations cannot live without them.

I am not trying to doubt all observation, only the extension of a set of observations to a general principle as Aquinas does. The error comes in that a general principle can be dis-proven by the introduction of another observation, unknown to the first observer, that does not fit the extension.

Aquinas observed the world, or more likely he relied on others to do so and thus create a language to describe it. He then used several key characteristic all of creation seemed to exhibit as an axiom and used that axiom as his premise. Those premises were :

1 Anything moved is moved by another

2 Anything caused is caused by another

3 If everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing – and so there would be nothing now – which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

4 Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest.

5 Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being.

But we see in science things that:

1 Move without the effect of others by coming out of the zero point energy - as in the motion of the particles during pair production and annihilation.

2 Come into existence without being caused by another - as in the generation of entire universes in the big bang from deSitter space.

3 Are not contingent on other things (like both quantum fluctuation and deSitter space itself) and we also see the second aspect of his point regard the need to nothing to lead to only nothing has already been refuted in the rebuttals to both points 1 and 2.

4 Show greatness is not a concrete quality but an abstract, arbitrary and relative one which is not transfered from one that is greater to one that is lesser.

5 Appear to act intelligently that have other mechanisms than an intelligent being behind them. This is once again because intelligence is an abstract, arbitrary and relative term which can be applied to any number of things by one individual and not applied to those same events by another.

punkforchrist:

In what sense do we know that nature is not as we observe it?

We don’t, but we can say it is not as Aquinas observed it, because the predictions of the science of that world view are less successful than the predictive power of the science behind the modern view which includes these new observations, one Aquinas was never even aware could occur.

punkforchrist:

As stated above, quantum theory does not negate the law of causation, so I do not see any evidence that falsifies Aquinas’ argument.

Where above did anyone prove that quantum theory does not negate the law of causation? I think you are assuming something that has not been shown.

 

[john_doran]

Good point! But then for Aquinas’ stake in the argument are we not still left making an appeal to the premise, (which is that axiom about nothing being able to generate or move itself) as the solution to this problem and at the same time be the conclusion to his proof?

i’m not sure i follow…the causal principle is an assumption relied upon in the First Cause argument, but it does not appear in the conclusion. the conclusion is that there must be a being that is uncaused.

michael_legna:

It seems to make Aquinas’ position functional we have to assume nothing can self generate and then to maintain the conclusion that only God generates (which is just a restatement of the premise) we have to deny everything we cannot understand as being self generating because it contradicts our conclusion.

the conclusion isn’t that only god is a cause (and nor does that proposition appear in the argument as a premise): it is that god is the only uncaused cause.

michael_legna:

I mean you ask anyone how to disprove an argument about non-existence and they will tell you go out and get an example of that item, whether it be a unicorn or a UFO or a Big Foot monster. If someone proposes an argument against their existence all you have to do to refute it is bring one in. But in this case we say oh know, it may just be that we cannot see what is driving it, if fact that has to be the answer because it violates our premise, which just happens to be a form of our conclusion.

epistemic certainty is a matter of degrees: i am more certain of the causal principle than i am of the truth of a highly speculative interpretation of quantum mechanical experimental data.

look, QM is not a complete theory, and to call causality into question because it is rejected by a recondite understanding of that incomplete theory strikes me as the height of folly…“we can’t see it, so it’s probably not there”. right.

michael_legna:

These are both good points, but they highlight the difference between the Church teaching and what the Catechism says when compared to Aquinas’ claim of a proof.

i know you keep talking about the CCC, but here’s the official church teaching from the vatican council:

If anybody says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those things that have been made, let him be anathema sit. (emphasis mine)

michael_legna:

It is fine for only parts of creation to reveal God to us, and it is fine that only part of humanity (the non-atheists) sees God in His creation for them to be converging and convincing arguments. But for something to be a proof it must cover all of nature, otherwise we could argue that only part of nature needs to have a prime mover or first cause. For something to be a proof it also has to apply to all men (as Aquinas’ proof is clearly aimed at the atheists) as long as they are equipped to enter into a logical debate.

sure, but again, the element of the argument we’re talking about is an axiom that lies at the very foundation of our thinking and understanding of the world - the kind of evidence that would be required to give it up would need to be unbelievably powerful and incredibly certain; i’m afraid the copenhagen interpretation of quantum vacuum fluctuations just doesn’t cut it.

 

[john_doran]

But we see in science things that:

1 Move without the effect of others by coming out of the zero point energy - as in the motion of the particles during pair production and annihilation.

2 Come into existence without being caused by another - as in the generation of entire universes in the big bang from deSitter space.

you talk about these things as if they are certainties and not the massively speculative pieces of philosophy they actually are…

for instance, we haven’t “seen” that there are no underlying causes for vacuum fluctuations, and while inflation may follow from a space with a positive cosmological constant once such a space exists, that does nothing to refute the need for a cause for the original coming-into-existence of that space.

look, just because some people object to some premises of an argument doesn’t make it an unsuccessful argument; there are objections to those objections, after all.

 

[vz71]

No, the whole point of my arguments and examples of scientific phenomena speaks to the fact that science does recognize a point where nothing exists and in two specific instances of this it has also observed self generating events in these environments.

Interesting.
Sources on this please.

I know of no means by which science has been able to observe anything remotely approaching the nothing that was before creation. Nor do I know of an instance where science has been able to simulate nothingness and observe spontaneous creation.

 

[vz71]

I believe I can see part of this misunderstanding right off…

But we see in science things that:
1 Move without the effect of others by coming out of the zero point energy - as in the motion of the particles during pair production and annihilation.

Have we really observed this?
Without being able to actually exit creation to observe the nothingness first hand, I would think not.
Everything in this universe is contained within the universe.
If something appears from nowhere, there is no reason to believe that it had no cause. There is however a good reason to believe that the cause is not known as yet.

I believe what we really have is a specialized area of physics where what we know is breaking down and we cannot predict very well from one moment to the next anything.

This lack of knowledge should not be some barrier to laying claim that we have observed creation without God around to do it.
It should simply be seen for what it is…a lack of knowledge.

When I watch a magician pull a rabbit from his hat, a suspect the rabbit was simply hidden from view…I do not believe for an instance the rabbit spontaneously appeared.

In the same way we have people looking into the subatomic world and laying claim that there is no prime mover because there are things going on with no cause; we could easily have centuries ago people laying claim that there is no prime mover because the ocean waves move with no observable cause.

 

[punkforchrist]

michael_legna:

Sure that is what the quantum fluctuation is, a process of pair production and annihilation, where particles arise out of the zero point energy and then disappear back into it.

Zero point energy is not literally “zero”. Rather, it is the point at which the least amount of energy is expected. Anything less than zero is “energy minima”, but it is still something.

michael_legna:

But we see in science things that:

1 Move without the effect of others by coming out of the zero point energy - as in the motion of the particles during pair production and annihilation.

Please see above. The quantum vacuum itself has rich physical properties, so “out of nothing comes nothing” is not falsified.

michael_legna:

Where above did anyone prove that quantum theory does not negate the law of causation? I think you are assuming something that has not been shown.

If by “prove” you mean absolute certainty, then no one has proven that or its contrapositive. However, as scientists note, quantum fluctuations only arise from vacuums that already have physical properties, so they are caused in the sense that something produces them.

Blessings

 

[michael_legna]

Part 1 of 2
john doran:

i’m not sure i follow…the causal principle is an assumption relied upon in the First Cause argument, but it does not appear in the conclusion. the conclusion is that there must be a being that is uncaused.

No, the premise is that there is nothing caused that does not have a cause. The conclusion is that there can only be one being which is uncaused (God), which is the same as concluding that nothing else can exist which does not have a cause. This is the same as the premise. This is circular reasoning unless one can support the premise with evidence. But as we have seen throughout this discussion this premise is not proven, just accepted based on common experience and observation of the macroscopic world in a Newtonian world view. Yes, we are very comfortable with this premise, such that this axiom gives us no pause. But modern observations show that it should give us pause to claim there are no uncaused causes.
john doran:

epistemic certainty is a matter of degrees: i am more certain of the causal principle than i am of the truth of a highly speculative interpretation of quantum mechanical experimental data.

You may be, but I don’t think the majority of Physicist would agree with you, and I suggest they are in a better position to judge the success of quantum mechanical interpretations than you both in regards to the extent of their speculative nature and as compared to the common understanding of causal relationships.
john doran:

look, QM is not a complete theory, and to call causality into question because it is rejected by a recondite understanding of that incomplete theory strikes me as the height of folly…“we can’t see it, so it’s probably not there”. right.

There is no complete theory in science so this criticism is artificial at best. The fact is the vast majority of Physicist accept quantum mechanics as completely reliable to use for predictions of behavior in high energy environments when the causal principle has shown itself completely incapable of predicting results.

You obviously value the experience of common man in the macroscopic world over the teachings of experts in the field of observation and experimentation. The history of science is full of examples of its results over turning long held belief systems that lack an supporting evidence outside of common experience.
john doran:

i know you keep talking about the CCC, but here’s the official church teaching from the vatican council:
Vatican I:

If anybody says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those things that have been made, let him be anathema sit

Do you think that the Catechism is in contradiction with Vatican I? I ask this because it makes a clear distinction that these proofs are not of the same type as used in the natural sciences:

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

Or is it possible that Vatican I was suggesting indirectly that one could be certain through some other process of human reason that is different from a scientific proof?

Because I don’t think denying Aquinas’ Five Points contradicts either possibility as it is possible there are other forms of reasoning and other ways to come to certainty.

End of Part 1

 

[michael_legna]

Part 2 of 2

Let me suggest even another option, one you yourself suggested above - that philosophical certainty is a matter of degrees.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent states:
CofCouncilofTrent:

Faith Excludes Doubt

The knowledge derived through faith must not be considered less certain because its objects are not seen; for the divine light by which we know them, although it does not render them evident, yet suffers us not to doubt them.

and
CofCouncilofTrent:

Knowledge Of God More Easily Obtained Through Faith Than Through Reason

There is a great difference between Christian philosophy and human wisdom. The latter, guided solely by the light of nature, advances slowly by reasoning on sensible objects and effects, and only after long and laborious investigation is it able at length to contemplate with difficulty the invisible things of God,

and
CofCouncilofTrent:

Knowledge Of God Obtained Through Faith Is More Certain

…but also that the knowledge obtained through faith is much more certain and more secure against error than if it were the result of philosophical inquiry.

Clearly, as the Church speaks of it, the idea of certainty is not an absolute goal, but is open to existing in degrees. So I contend (that for each of these sources of the Church to be consistent with each other), what the Council of Vatican I refers to as “certainty in the light of human reason” is the same degree as what the Catechism refers to as “converging and convincing arguments”, both of them being of lower degree than the certainty available through faith.
john doran:

sure, but again, the element of the argument we’re talking about is an axiom that lies at the very foundation of our thinking and understanding of the world

An understanding based on a very limited set of observations and an understanding completely incongruent with modern experiments, where we know many of our normal thoughts on causality have been shown to be wrong.

End of Part 2

 

[tdgesq]

But then this was not the point. I was not using Young’s Double Slit experiment to refute Aquinas’ five points. It was brought up to show that it is possible to be S and ~S at the same time.

And here is the sad state of much of the scientific community today. The principle of identity, that every being is what it is and is not something else, the very foundation of logic, the empirical and science, is supposedly destroyed by an experiment that tells us relatively little about reality.

The double slit experiment requires unobservable inference after unobservable inference to come up with the ontological conclusion that has been reached here. Focusing only on the conclusion that there are light “waves”, first you must conduct the experiment by passing light through the two slit barrier and then view the interference pattern on a screen. We don’t actually see the “wave,” we see a pattern on a screen that looks like a snapshot of wave activity we have observed in nature, water wave interference for example. Wave equations that approximate the motion of these waves we actually see in nature are then applied to the results of the experiment and refined until it fits these tests under a multitude of different settings.

Of course mathematical equations can only describe the quantitative aspects and relationships of a thing. That is all it can give. It doesn’t tell us what a thing is. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and describe your armchair in every conceivable mathematical way possible. Then take a look at it, touch it. You can tell me many things about your chair from the aspect of extension and the like from mathematics, but you can’t really tell me what it is from that alone.

I don’t think it’s necessary to get into the similar issues involved with quantum mechanics and the inferences there that light is a particle, a photon. Your basic error in both cases is to attribute a full ontological explanation to what is really a limited mathematical description of certain aspects of a thing. To so casually throw out the principles of identity and non-contradiction on such flimsy and incomplete evidence is astonishing, especially when those principles are absolutely necessary to conduct the double slit experiment in the first place.

As for deSitter space and the notion that “quantum fluctuations come into existence spontaneously from the vacuum,” this does not entail that they came into existence without a cause. There are certain necessary conditions that must be in place before there can be any such existence. Indeterminacy is not the same thing as the absence of cause, even if does point to the absence of a fully sufficient cause (assuming no hidden variables).

Dr. William Lane Craig gives a crushing rejoinder to the assertions you’ve made here, and I encourage everyone who is still confused about this issue to read it.

leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html

 

[michael_legna]

I think I will leave the discussion here.

I thought I might be able to explain this issue so that anyone could understand it without having to know the mathematics and details of the Physics that underlies the issues of causality.

I now see, based on some of the most recent posts, that there are many, many deep rooted misunderstandings of both the experiments and their outcomes, not to mention the extent to which our modern life and the devices it revolves around relies on these results.

 

[utunumsint]

Does anyone know what Anthony Rizzi says about this issue? He is a physicist and knows Thomistic theology very well from what I can see.

Here is a review I found of his book, The Science before Science.

In his fourth chapter, Rizzi explains Thomistic thought on being and the transcendentals (like truth, goodness, beauty) with admirable brevity and accuracy. The remaining chapters engage almost every topic that poses profound questions for the inquiring mind interested in faith and science: the big bang, time travel, evolution, relativity, animal souls, artificial intelligence, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

The book’s argument builds up to an exposition of Aquinas’s philosophical demonstrations of the existence of God, set forth in a way understandable even to sceptics trained by modern science. The book’s argument also includes an explanation of how the advances of modern science only happened in history because of the Catholic faith.

Here is another quote from Zenit.

Most people are probably familiar with the popular use of quantum mechanics to claim that the principle of causality is overturned or to justify subjectivist worldviews. These conclusions are made by misunderstanding the limits of the scientific method.

I haven’t read the book myself, so I’d like to know if others have and what they thought.

God bless,
Ut