Is Faith logical?

[Perplexity]

Credo quia absurdum

“I believe because it is absurd”

I’ve always wondered about this line of reasoning. I mean, there are all kinds of absurd positions we don’t believe. That’s why there’s such a thing as reductio ad absurdum. I just don’t see why we should look at one absurd thing and think it couldn’t be false, and look at another equally or more absurd thing and disbelieve it precisely because it’s absurd.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

It seems unfortunate to have arrived so early at such an axiomatic rift. May we agree first that the universe might be closed, with the understanding that we might also be in error?

Okay, then. If we agree that, then I assume we have the following 4 axioms from what you’ve said:

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future. (… Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers…)

Axiom 3: The Universe is a closed system.

Axiom 4: The universe will attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). (This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in cosmology.) (Axiom 4 depends on Axiom 3.)

So that makes four shared assumptions.

My mind wants to wander off onto a new set of assumptions, and it’s hard to stay on topic here. Let’s try to see how much we agree on the nature of the Universe. If we do this a certain way, this new tangent could lead back to the idea of a closed system in our Universe. But I want to take it slowly.

Can we share assumptions about a** fifth axiom**: Is it possible that there are things in the Universe that are there which are currently undetectable to our senses and current public instruments (who knows what the government has).

As an interesting aside, might God have been able to inject the Holy Spirit into a closed system?

Yes. However, when God does this, the system is no longer a closed system until He is through injecting.

But your question brings up more questions.

Has the Holy Spirit always been in this Universe, and just waiting for the time for It’s proper role? If not, when was the Holy Spirit injected into the Cosmos?

If the Holy Spirit has been inserted into our world at a specific point in history, then it was at that time that a gateway was opened between the dimension of Heaven and the dimension of our Universe, and truly, at that point, we were an open system. At the moment that the “injection” stops, we became a closed system again.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

1. Does God have free will?

Sure.

 

[ChesterBeach]

I’ve always wondered about this line of reasoning. I mean, there are all kinds of absurd positions we don’t believe. That’s why there’s such a thing as reductio ad absurdum. I just don’t see why we should look at one absurd thing and think it couldn’t be false, and look at another equally or more absurd thing and disbelieve it precisely because it’s absurd.

At the heart of Christianity is the mystery of the Trinity, which transcends logic. We are using our finite minds to try and grasp the infinite. We are destined to fail, like trying to drink the ocean. It makes the whole of the faith like a zen koan.

 

[ErnestoMM]

responses very good! )

 

[Perplexity]

At the heart of Christianity is the mystery of the Trinity, which transcends logic. We are using our finite minds to try and grasp the infinite. We are destined to fail, like trying to drink the ocean. It makes the whole of the faith like a zen koan.

Hm, I’m just trying to relate this back to our exchange on the principle “Credo quia absurdum”.

It seems like you’re saying Trinity is absurd (and Christianity by implication, since it’s the heart of Christianity), and that’s why you believe in it.

But, if our minds cannot grasp the Trinity at all, then it’s unclear that you actually believe anything. That is, if the Trinity is completely beyond our comprehension, then you don’t actually believe in anything called the Trinity, since that word doesn’t refer to anything intelligible.

If we can grasp something about the Trinity, then that something is either absurd or it isn’t. If it is absurd, it seems like the appropriate response is to disbelieve in it (like we do with anything else that’s absurd). If it isn’t absurd, I think I may have missed your point.

 

[ChesterBeach]

Hm, I’m just trying to relate this back to our exchange on the principle “Credo quia absurdum”.

It seems like you’re saying Trinity is absurd (and Christianity by implication, since it’s the heart of Christianity), and that’s why you believe in it.

But, if our minds cannot grasp the Trinity at all, then it’s unclear that you actually believe anything. That is, if the Trinity is completely beyond our comprehension, then you don’t actually believe in anything called the Trinity, since that word doesn’t refer to anything intelligible.

If we can grasp something about the Trinity, then that something is either absurd or it isn’t. If it is absurd, it seems like the appropriate response is to disbelieve in it (like we do with anything else that’s absurd). If it isn’t absurd, I think I may have missed your point.

The point of a koan is to get you out of the mode of rational thought. You are given something that can’t be made sense of. It is made up of knowable things, so you can approach it, but you can’t solve it. “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” We know what a hand is and we know what clapping is but how can one hand clap? (Bart Simpson solution aside)

The trinity we know what the concept of Father, Son and Spirit are. We know what “personhood” is we know what “one” is, we what what “three” is, we know what separate means etc what we can’t get is how they all come together at once.

So the faith is a methodology to get out of thinking and to get us to experience. What Christians say God is, is Love. Love is not rational. You aren’t going to get to God through reason, it is an experience of Love.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Okay, then. If we agree that, then I assume we have the following 4 axioms from what you’ve said:

Axiom 1: Biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth.

Axiom 2: If biological organisms are created from other biological organisms on planet Earth, then therefore, there will be a continual production and likely increase of biological organisms on planet Earth in the Future. (… Excluding biomass, sustainability arguments, and devastating corrections that reduce numbers…)

Axiom 3: The Universe is a closed system.

Axiom 4: The universe will attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death). (This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in cosmology.) (Axiom 4 depends on Axiom 3.)

So that makes four shared assumptions.

My mind wants to wander off onto a new set of assumptions, and it’s hard to stay on topic here. Let’s try to see how much we agree on the nature of the Universe. If we do this a certain way, this new tangent could lead back to the idea of a closed system in our Universe. But I want to take it slowly.

Can we share assumptions about a** fifth axiom**: Is it possible that there are things in the Universe that are there which are currently undetectable to our senses and current public instruments (who knows what the government has).

It seems not only possible, but probable.

Yes. However, when God does this, the system is no longer a closed system until He is through injecting.

But your question brings up more questions.

Has the Holy Spirit always been in this Universe, and just waiting for the time for It’s proper role? If not, when was the Holy Spirit injected into the Cosmos?

If the Holy Spirit has been inserted into our world at a specific point in history, then it was at that time that a gateway was opened between the dimension of Heaven and the dimension of our Universe, and truly, at that point, we were an open system. At the moment that the “injection” stops, we became a closed system again.

It is not possible to know, but assuming that Jesus was not also always within the realm of our cosmos, would it not seem likely that the Holy Spirit would be equally injected at a fixed time?

Further, if prayers are answered by God in Heaven, would the power necessary to effect the prayer request re-open the system each time? Assuming a continuous prayer answering system, would this require that the system be continuously open?

Or is the system only open in a limited way? If so, what might be the consequences of these limits?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Sure.

Let us state the agreed properties of God (insofar as current knowledge allows).

God:

1. Is Omniscient
2. Foresees the future
3. Is Perfect
4. Exists in a realm in which information may accumulate (ie. time passes)
5. Has Free Will

Let us now explore some possible consequences of the above to consider their plausibility.

From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).

Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act? If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

In spite of 5, God appears unlikely to ever change his mind {for such a change would be foreseen (1 & 2) and be less than perfect (3)}. Further, if God exists in a realm in which time passes (4), is it not necessarily the case that he has foreseen all of his future actions? If so, how might God differentiate between exercising his Free Will (5) and merely following a preordained script? Assuming the script is preordained by God, himself, would this mean that all of his free choices were decided in an infinite past and no longer exercisable in a temporal now (1, 2, & 3)?

Further, if God foresees and retains infinite knowledge of an infinite future and past, would God ever be able to know himself perfectly? Or would God currently lack self-knowledge, but foresee a time in an infinite future in which such self-knowledge might come about (thereby knowing of the knowledge before it arrives in his possession)?

Finally, if God were to have Free Will (5), would he be able to choose to do evil? If so, would this not seemingly defy Perfection (3)? If not, would he truly have Perfect (3) Free Will (5)?

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Let us state the agreed properties of God (insofar as current knowledge allows)…

God:

1. Is Omniscient
2. Foresees the future
3. Is Perfect
4. Exists in a realm in which information may accumulate (ie. time passes)
5. Has Free Will

Let us now explore some possible consequences of the above to consider their plausibility…

As it was with your previous questions, I’m gonna need a bit of time to respond. So, hang tight.

-L.H.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Let us now explore some possible consequences of the above to consider their plausibility.

From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).

Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act? If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

In spite of 5, God appears unlikely to ever change his mind {for such a change would be foreseen (1 & 2) and be less than perfect (3)}. Further, if God exists in a realm in which time passes (4), is it not necessarily the case that he has foreseen all of his future actions? If so, how might God differentiate between exercising his Free Will (5) and merely following a preordained script? Assuming the script is preordained by God, himself, would this mean that all of his free choices were decided in an infinite past and no longer exercisable in a temporal now (1, 2, & 3)?

Further, if God foresees and retains infinite knowledge of an infinite future and past, would God ever be able to know himself perfectly? Or would God currently lack self-knowledge, but foresee a time in an infinite future in which such self-knowledge might come about (thereby knowing of the knowledge before it arrives in his possession)?

Finally, if God were to have Free Will (5), would he be able to choose to do evil? If so, would this not seemingly defy Perfection (3)? If not, would he truly have Perfect (3) Free Will (5)?

This is a lot of new considerations from your end. A lot of suppositions and conclusions, and it comes a bit too quick for me. Let’s slow it down, if possible.

I have responses for everything, but I want to check on some of what I’d answer with before approaching those particulars. Also, perhaps we should start categorizing two different sets of axioms. For example: Axioms proposed by Laramie, and Axioms proposed by Jelrak.

For now, though, I will break up your latest response into sections, for clarity:

Section 1
Let us now explore some possible consequences of the above to consider their plausibility.

From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).

Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act? If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

Section 2
In spite of 5, God appears unlikely to ever change his mind {for such a change would be foreseen (1 & 2) and be less than perfect (3)}. Further, if God exists in a realm in which time passes (4), is it not necessarily the case that he has foreseen all of his future actions? If so, how might God differentiate between exercising his Free Will (5) and merely following a preordained script? Assuming the script is preordained by God, himself, would this mean that all of his free choices were decided in an infinite past and no longer exercisable in a temporal now (1, 2, & 3)?

Section 3
Further, if God foresees and retains infinite knowledge of an infinite future and past, would God ever be able to know himself perfectly? Or would God currently lack self-knowledge, but foresee a time in an infinite future in which such self-knowledge might come about (thereby knowing of the knowledge before it arrives in his possession)?

Section 4
Finally, if God were to have Free Will (5), would he be able to choose to do evil? If so, would this not seemingly defy Perfection (3)? If not, would he truly have Perfect (3) Free Will (5)

---

At the moment, I have time to address Section 4.

A. If God were to have Free Will, would he be able to choose to do evil?
- No. Evil is the opposite of His will. Perhaps, if He were to be inconsistent, we were
to consider His actions evil.

B. [If He were to be “evil”/inconsistent,] would this not seemingly defy Perfection?
- A Perfect Being can choose to be inconsistent, while still retaining Perfection. The
consistency of His plan would be imperfect, though.

The answers to A. and B. break apart your third question, C.

C. [If this action did not defy Perfection], would He truly have Perfect free will?
- Yes. But again, your third question is based on the previous two suppositions, which
alter how question C. is perceived. If God were to choose to be inconsistent with
His policies in the cosmos, He would still be a perfect being, and He could make
such a choice using His free will.

---

Again, let’s try to hone down to less tangents. If this conversation turns into a three-dozen headed hydra, it would be very difficult to respond, follow, and observe.

But I’ll get to Sections 1-3, nevertheless. Also, I’ll propose a 6th Axiom later this evening.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

It is not possible to know, but assuming that Jesus was not also always within the realm of our cosmos, would it not seem likely that the Holy Spirit would be equally injected at a fixed time?

Actually, I think you are right here. I recall Christ stating that He had to leave so that the Comforter could come.

So yes, both were introduced at a particular time.

Further, if prayers are answered by God in Heaven, would the power necessary to effect the prayer request re-open the system each time? Assuming a continuous prayer answering system, would this require that the system be continuously open?

Or is the system only open in a limited way? If so, what might be the consequences of these limits?

In regards to the idea of the cosmos being an open or closed system, perhaps it could be said that when it comes to prayer, prayer and information, at least, are allowed to pass freely between the dimensions. If this were the case, it could be said that the cosmos is an open system in terms communication, though not material.

Assuming that information via prayer is a real thing which cannot yet be measured, we already have one example that fits under **Axiom 5’s **umbrella: that there are things in the Universe that are there which are currently undetectable to our senses and current public instruments (who knows what the government has).

But Axiom 6 will not be whether or not prayer is real or not. Instead, can we agree on a 6th Axiom, which establishes the possiblity that there are consciences and intelligences in our Cosmos which are invisible to our detection?

When I think about this possible 6th shared assumption, I imagine many science fiction stories, or a particular Star Trek episode in which the crew might come across a life form that was undetectable to their censors.

 

[LaramieHirsch]

Section 3
Further, if God foresees and retains infinite knowledge of an infinite future and past, would God ever be able to know himself perfectly? Or would God currently lack self-knowledge, but foresee a time in an infinite future in which such self-knowledge might come about (thereby knowing of the knowledge before it arrives in his possession)?

Yes, God knows Himself. God is omniscient, possessing perfect knowledge of all things, due to His infinite perfection. And He knows and comprehends Himself fully and adequately.

 

[grannymh]

From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).
Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act?

No.

If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

The real concept of Original Sin is based on the logical relationship between Divinity (Creator) and humanity (creature). The first human had both rational intellect and will so that he could choose to live in submission to his Creator. When Adam scorned the requirements for sharing in God’s life, the bond of friendship between humanity and Divinity was shattered. Obviously, leaving the presence of a loving Creator would not lead to pleasantry.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

This is a lot of new considerations from your end. A lot of suppositions and conclusions, and it comes a bit too quick for me. Let’s slow it down, if possible.

I have responses for everything, but I want to check on some of what I’d answer with before approaching those particulars. Also, perhaps we should start categorizing two different sets of axioms. For example: Axioms proposed by Laramie, and Axioms proposed by Jelrak.

For now, though, I will break up your latest response into sections, for clarity:

Section 1
Let us now explore some possible consequences of the above to consider their plausibility.

From 1, 2, & 3, we must assume that it is not possible for God to err, to be surprised, to be disappointed, or to be angry (for all would require either a lack of foreknowledge (2), current knowledge (1), or perfection (3).

Would this not then suggest that no fair test for mankind could have been possible given that God would have predicted the outcome prior to the first creative act? If no fair test, how might mankind have deserved punishment for the Fall?

Section 2
In spite of 5, God appears unlikely to ever change his mind {for such a change would be foreseen (1 & 2) and be less than perfect (3)}. Further, if God exists in a realm in which time passes (4), is it not necessarily the case that he has foreseen all of his future actions? If so, how might God differentiate between exercising his Free Will (5) and merely following a preordained script? Assuming the script is preordained by God, himself, would this mean that all of his free choices were decided in an infinite past and no longer exercisable in a temporal now (1, 2, & 3)?

Section 3
Further, if God foresees and retains infinite knowledge of an infinite future and past, would God ever be able to know himself perfectly? Or would God currently lack self-knowledge, but foresee a time in an infinite future in which such self-knowledge might come about (thereby knowing of the knowledge before it arrives in his possession)?

Section 4
Finally, if God were to have Free Will (5), would he be able to choose to do evil? If so, would this not seemingly defy Perfection (3)? If not, would he truly have Perfect (3) Free Will (5)

---

At the moment, I have time to address Section 4.

A. If God were to have Free Will, would he be able to choose to do evil?
- No. Evil is the opposite of His will. Perhaps, if He were to be inconsistent, we were
to consider His actions evil.

Since the question was whether he might be able to choose to do evil, how is it consistent that he would not be able to do so given it would run contrary to his will? Is this not the same as stating that he could not do so because he would not wish to do so? For clarity, is God’s own will capable of thwarting God’s own will?

Alternately, how might it be conceived to be inconsistent of him to be able to do evil, but freely choose not to?

B. [If He were to be “evil”/inconsistent,] would this not seemingly defy Perfection?
- A Perfect Being can choose to be inconsistent, while still retaining Perfection. The
consistency of His plan would be imperfect, though.

This seems reasonable, provided the being’s Perfection remains unqualified. Would the same hold true for a being considered Perfectly Good?

The answers to A. and B. break apart your third question, C.

C. [If this action did not defy Perfection], would He truly have Perfect free will?
- Yes. But again, your third question is based on the previous two suppositions, which
alter how question C. is perceived. If God were to choose to be inconsistent with
His policies in the cosmos, He would still be a perfect being, and He could make
such a choice using His free will.

Accepted in light of the current understanding of Perfection. Might this alter if his Perfection might be qualified as per above?

---

Again, let’s try to hone down to less tangents. If this conversation turns into a three-dozen headed hydra, it would be very difficult to respond, follow, and observe.

But I’ll get to Sections 1-3, nevertheless. Also, I’ll propose a 6th Axiom later this evening.

Shall we then follow a proper format? One in which a premise is 1) advanced, 2) rebutted, 3) clarified, 4) concluded? This should reduce all tangents to four posts (two each).

Naturally the central theme may unfold as desired.

In such a vein, the above 4th consequence has been advanced, rebutted, and refined. It now merely awaits your conclusion.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Actually, I think you are right here. I recall Christ stating that He had to leave so that the Comforter could come.

So yes, both were introduced at a particular time.

OK.

In regards to the idea of the cosmos being an open or closed system, perhaps it could be said that when it comes to prayer, prayer and information, at least, are allowed to pass freely between the dimensions. If this were the case, it could be said that the cosmos is an open system in terms communication, though not material.

OK.

Assuming that information via prayer is a real thing which cannot yet be measured, we already have one example that fits under **Axiom 5’s **umbrella: that there are things in the Universe that are there which are currently undetectable to our senses and current public instruments (who knows what the government has).

But Axiom 6 will not be whether or not prayer is real or not. Instead, can we agree on a 6th Axiom, which establishes the possiblity that there are consciences and intelligences in our Cosmos which are invisible to our detection?

It is possible. If such beings were to reside on Earth, would not some consequence arise from their necessary proximity to mankind?

To clarify, would not some of their activities be the subject of observation and hold a capability of being measured?

When I think about this possible 6th shared assumption, I imagine many science fiction stories, or a particular Star Trek episode in which the crew might come across a life form that was undetectable to their censors.

Indeed.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Yes, God knows Himself. God is omniscient, possessing perfect knowledge of all things, due to His infinite perfection. And He knows and comprehends Himself fully and adequately.

Allowing for an accumulation of information over Time, would God’s perspective of himself ever change?

Alternately, is God able to learn?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

No.

With which premise do you disagree:

1. That God is able to see the future and is Omniscient?
2. That no fair test might exist?

If one is able to agree with #1, but disagree with #2, how might the below explanation properly clarify how this is possible?

The real concept of Original Sin is based on the logical relationship between Divinity (Creator) and humanity (creature). The first human had both rational intellect and will so that he could choose to live in submission to his Creator. When Adam scorned the requirements for sharing in God’s life, the bond of friendship between humanity and Divinity was shattered. Obviously, leaving the presence of a loving Creator would not lead to pleasantry.

If one is the author of a novel in which a character chooses poorly, is the character to blame?

Alternately, if one were to roll a marble down a hillside, would one be justified in scolding the marble for proceeding away from the one in the exact tangent predicted?

Further, if one is an inventor of a machine with a basic design flaw known at the time of invention, is the machine blameworthy if it does not function as desired, but functions as designed?

Finally, would it have been possible for Adam to have had free will if he, along with God, had known with a certainty that he would eat the apple? How might he have retained free will if only God knew of the outcome (given that no action on the part of Adam would seemingly have allowed him to avoid his fate once so preordained)?

 

[grannymh]

With which premise do you disagree:

1. That God is able to see the future and is Omniscient?
2. That no fair test might exist?

If one is able to agree with #1, but disagree with #2, how might the below explanation properly clarify how this is possible?

If one is the author of a novel in which a character chooses poorly, is the character to blame?

Alternately, if one were to roll a marble down a hillside, would one be justified in scolding the marble for proceeding away from the one in the exact tangent predicted?

Further, if one is an inventor of a machine with a basic design flaw known at the time of invention, is the machine blameworthy if it does not function as desired, but functions as designed?

Finally, would it have been possible for Adam to have had free will if he, along with God, had known with a certainty that he would eat the apple? How might he have retained free will if only God knew of the outcome (given that no action on the part of Adam would seemingly have allowed him to avoid his fate once so preordained)?

My apology, but these old eyes do not spot anything relating directly to Original Sin which I do believe is what was being discussed.

The real concept of Original Sin is based on the logical relationship between Divinity (Creator) and humanity (creature). Thus, beginning comments should be directed to the relationship and to the persons themselves in regard to the actual Original Sin.

As a start, the relationship is between two persons who are not equal in status. The first problem/solution should address the fact that one is the Creator and the other is the creature. Because of the inequality, special requirements would be needed on the part of the creature in order to have a friendship relationship with his Creator.

Logically, one first has to know that God is transcendent Pure Spirit Creator and therefore is not restricted by His material/physical creation. The creature, that is Adam the first human is created as part of the material/physical world but, and this is important, His Creator has given him a nature which in itself is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. I am referring to the material anatomy and the rational spiritual soul.

So far so good?

 

[Gblat]

So...

How would one respond to these two basic questions if they were posed by an atheist:

**1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?**
**2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?**

And we'll see where this goes.

**1. Is it logical to believe there is a God?**No, but whether God is (my stance,)or is not, or is not what we think, faith uses whatever logic/rationalization to validate whatever form of belief is needed for the explanation. I t can be historical/traditional, as the Catholic faith, or based on naturalism, such as the famous cargo cult.

**2. Is it logical that Christianity is the true Faith?**No, though it may function as true for various reasons for any particular believer or group of believers. There is, again, logic and rationalizations from premises accepted because of the faith, or fear, or learning, or whatever, but no believer today was there. And even if they were, piety aside, how would they know, if given the circumstances and perceptions of their attendance, they would ever recognize Jesus if they had no for knowledge of His Commission? The vast majority did not.

So how did you come to believe, and in what? Was it because someone convinced you by habit before you could think about it, and then you only could think about it through those filters? Or were you able somehow to completely step outside your memories, habits, and educations and actually choose your faith, whatever you ended up as? How did you get to where you are, right or wrong?

And is even the “true” religion commonly understood by any random practitioner in the manner it may have been either originally intended, or meant to be passed down? Are all understandings equal, logically or in any way?

What if Jesus sat down next to you on an airplane, dressed in a business suit, clean shaven, cologn, puff, laptop and all. Would you look twice?

Here’s a tiny example: youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhwHow do you know you might be different?