Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New member question about philosophy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Actually - it does not do the second, AFAIK.
    Yes. But it is used for that purpose.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Darfius View Post
      I doubt this made sense to you, let alone to the rest of us. Kindly explain what "sequence" took place before time began to exist. The infinite cannot be broken up into "sequences." Sequences, segments and generally anything to do with time are inherently and exclusively finite functions.
      You suppose time had not existed. Yet such an infinite series of events would have no beginning and no beginning of time. Our known universe seems to have a beginning. So if our known universe was a result of something before its apparent beginning at this point we do not know that. Theologically our known universe has a beginning with God (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3). And that God was always in time without a beginning (Psalm 90:2).
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        You suppose time had not existed. Yet such an infinite series of events would have no beginning and no beginning of time. Our known universe seems to have a beginning.
        Our known universe? Not necessarily so. If the cyclic or black hole hypothesis are corrcet our universe did not have a beginning. This does not address the possibility of the existence of the multiverse.

        So if our known universe was a result of something before its apparent beginning at this point we do not know that. Theologically our known universe has a beginning with God (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3). And that God was always in time without a beginning (Psalm 90:2).
        IF is not meaningful IF it is only a theological assuption.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Our known universe? Not necessarily so. If the cyclic or black hole hypothesis are corrcet our universe did not have a beginning. This does not address the possibility of the existence of the multiverse.
          Hypothesis does not change what is known.


          IF is not meaningful IF it is only a theological assuption.
          Your belief is not required.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Yes. But it is used for that purpose.
            As I said, 37818, there is a 4th step added to the KCA that does not necessarily follow - that this cause must be "god." The KCA itself merely concludes, "the universe must be caused." It is also unclear that the argument is sound.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              As I said, 37818, there is a 4th step added to the KCA that does not necessarily follow - that this cause must be "god." The KCA itself merely concludes, "the universe must be caused." It is also unclear that the argument is sound.
              It does go into why.

              If the universe is caused, and it started from a singularity (infinite mass density existing in zero space and zero time) something had to cause it to expand. If there was nothing else in existence and there was no time to act in, why didn't the singularity just remain a singularity? Why did it "suddenly" expand? The cause had to be something that could act on it without time, that wasn't matter, and could exist with no space. Which means it would be immaterial. It would have to be intelligent to decide to act, and it would be God.


              What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we’ve seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy.

              Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

              Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

              Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

              This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.
              https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ical-argument/

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                It does go into why.
                Actually, the KCA goes as follows:

                Premises 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
                Premises 2: The universe began to exist;
                Conclusion: The universe has a cause.

                Craig leaps from this to his argument, but it is not part of the KCA, and it is an argument, IMO, that begs its conclusion.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                If the universe is caused, and it started from a singularity (infinite mass density existing in zero space and zero time) something had to cause it to expand. If there was nothing else in existence and there was no time to act in, why didn't the singularity just remain a singularity? Why did it "suddenly" expand? The cause had to be something that could act on it without time, that wasn't matter, and could exist with no space. Which means it would be immaterial. It would have to be intelligent to decide to act, and it would be God.


                What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we’ve seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy.

                Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe.

                Here’s the problem: If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect, then if the cause is there, the effect must be there, too. For example, the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0 degrees Celsius. If the temperature has been below 0 degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless. So why isn’t the universe permanently there as well? Why did the universe come into being only 14 billion years ago? Why isn’t it as permanent as its cause?

                Ghazali maintained that the answer to this problem is that the First Cause must be a personal being endowed with freedom of the will. His creating the universe is a free act which is independent of any prior determining conditions. So his act of creating can be something spontaneous and new. Freedom of the will enables one to get an effect with a beginning from a permanent, timeless cause. Thus, we are brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe but to its Personal Creator.

                This is admittedly hard for us to imagine. But one way to think about it is to envision God existing alone without the universe as changeless and timeless. His free act of creation is a temporal event simultaneous with the universe’s coming into being. Therefore, God enters into time when He creates the universe. God is thus timeless without the universe and in time with the universe.
                https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ical-argument/
                But Craig is making a lot of assumptions. His argument goes as follows:

                Premise 1: The universe has a cause (conclusion from the KCA)
                Premise 2: If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
                Comclusion: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

                Premise two is simply a premise crafted to lead to the inevitable conclusion. The argument is sound, but it cannot be shown to be valid because Premise 2 cannot be shown to be true. We don't know what exists "outside" the universe, and we don't know that this thing has to be sentient or personal.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Actually, the KCA goes as follows:

                  Premises 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
                  Premises 2: The universe began to exist;
                  Conclusion: The universe has a cause.

                  Craig leaps from this to his argument, but it is not part of the KCA, and it is an argument, IMO, that begs its conclusion.



                  But Craig is making a lot of assumptions. His argument goes as follows:

                  Premise 1: The universe has a cause (conclusion from the KCA)
                  Premise 2: If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
                  Comclusion: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

                  Premise two is simply a premise crafted to lead to the inevitable conclusion. The argument is sound, but it cannot be shown to be valid because Premise 2 cannot be shown to be true. We don't know what exists "outside" the universe, and we don't know that this thing has to be sentient or personal.
                  wow. OK if you are going to just burn strawmen then this discussion is useless. You basically just ignore the whole KCA and make up your own. great.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    wow. OK if you are going to just burn strawmen then this discussion is useless. You basically just ignore the whole KCA and make up your own. great.
                    I have to wonder about this response, Sparko. What I quoted is the KCA. Indeed, I quoted word-for-word from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_...gical_argument

                    But there are many other sources you can look at. This one combines the two syllogisms into one, but Premise 4 is still the premises that is asserted without substantiation: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...ical-argument/

                    Here it is again, from a Christian source: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ical-argument/

                    Here it is with only the first part emphasized (which is the cruz of the argument) together with multiple objections to the argument, some of which I have already cited: https://crossexamined.org/11-objecti...ical-argument/

                    I'm not sure where you think I am burning strawmen or making it up. Are you perhaps not familiar with the structure of the KCA?
                    Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-07-2018, 03:46 PM.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      I have to wonder about this response, Sparko. What I quoted is the KCA. Indeed, I quoted word-for-word from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_...gical_argument

                      But there are many other sources you can look at. This one combines the two syllogisms into one, but Premise 4 is still the premises that is asserted without substantiation: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...ical-argument/

                      Here it is again, from a Christian source: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ical-argument/

                      Here it is with only the first part emphasized (which is the cruz of the argument) together with multiple objections to the argument, some of which I have already cited: https://crossexamined.org/11-objecti...ical-argument/

                      I'm not sure where you think I am burning strawmen or making it up. Are you perhaps not familiar with the structure of the KCA?
                      Wow! I REeLLY need to prof beeter befor I hit "post"
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I have to wonder about this response, Sparko. What I quoted is the KCA. Indeed, I quoted word-for-word from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_...gical_argument

                        But there are many other sources you can look at. This one combines the two syllogisms into one, but Premise 4 is still the premises that is asserted without substantiation: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...ical-argument/

                        Here it is again, from a Christian source: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ical-argument/

                        Here it is with only the first part emphasized (which is the cruz of the argument) together with multiple objections to the argument, some of which I have already cited: https://crossexamined.org/11-objecti...ical-argument/

                        I'm not sure where you think I am burning strawmen or making it up. Are you perhaps not familiar with the structure of the KCA?
                        Look you quoted the logical steps to the argument, that is not the entire argument. In fact, I gave you the link to Craig's actual argument earlier along with the quote of the explanation of why the cause had to be intelligent, which you then just dismissed with your pile of straw!


                        No logical argument stands only on the premises. You have to explain the premises and argue why they are true. That is what Craig does. You ignore the entirety of the argument and claim that the premise is the entire argument. That's insane. and nothing but

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Look you quoted the logical steps to the argument, that is not the entire argument. In fact, I gave you the link to Craig's actual argument earlier along with the quote of the explanation of why the cause had to be intelligent, which you then just dismissed with your pile of straw!

                          No logical argument stands only on the premises. You have to explain the premises and argue why they are true. That is what Craig does. You ignore the entirety of the argument and claim that the premise is the entire argument. That's insane. and nothing but
                          Actually, a logical argument stands on its premises. It is sound if it is well-structured, which the KCA is. It is valid if it is sound AND the premises are true. The KCA appears to be sound, but it is not shown to be valid, for two reasons.

                          1) Beginning to exist. The first premise is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause." In reality, that is our experience within the confines of this universe. But the KCA is attempting to take a reality we observe about things WITHIN the universe and apply it to something else entirely: the universe itself. But if space/time/energy/matter are had their beginning in the "big bang" and make up the known universe, we don't know what preceeded the big bang, if "preceded" can even be applied in that context, orwhat lies "outside" the universe, and if "outside" can even be applied in that context. Premise #2 of the KCA then, is an unshown assumption. It may be true - but it is not necessarily true.

                          2) Craig depends heavily on this statement for Premise 3: Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe. Yet there is no substantiation for this claim. Again, we do not know what exists outside/prior to the universe, so we cannot substantiate the truth of this claim. Ghazali (and Craig) appear to be crafting a premise out of whole cloth in an attempt to get to their conclusion.

                          I'm sure I'll get another "dancing strawman" for this response. It appears to be the way you folks engage in discussions here. But that is my reason for claiming that the KCA, and the add-on that Craig makes, cannot be shown to be true. Note - I also cannot show them to be false. All we can say is, they don't prove what they claim to prove. The reality is, we don't know. I am not in the habit of replacng "I don't know" with gods.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Actually, a logical argument stands on its premises. It is sound if it is well-structured, which the KCA is. It is valid if it is sound AND the premises are true. The KCA appears to be sound, but it is not shown to be valid, for two reasons.

                            1) Beginning to exist. The first premise is that "everything that begins to exist has a cause." In reality, that is our experience within the confines of this universe. But the KCA is attempting to take a reality we observe about things WITHIN the universe and apply it to something else entirely: the universe itself. But if space/time/energy/matter are had their beginning in the "big bang" and make up the known universe, we don't know what preceeded the big bang, if "preceded" can even be applied in that context, orwhat lies "outside" the universe, and if "outside" can even be applied in that context. Premise #2 of the KCA then, is an unshown assumption. It may be true - but it is not necessarily true.

                            2) Craig depends heavily on this statement for Premise 3: Finally, Ghazali argued that this Uncaused First Cause must also be a personal being. It’s the only way to explain how an eternal cause can produce an effect with a beginning like the universe. Yet there is no substantiation for this claim. Again, we do not know what exists outside/prior to the universe, so we cannot substantiate the truth of this claim. Ghazali (and Craig) appear to be crafting a premise out of whole cloth in an attempt to get to their conclusion.

                            I'm sure I'll get another "dancing strawman" for this response. It appears to be the way you folks engage in discussions here. But that is my reason for claiming that the KCA, and the add-on that Craig makes, cannot be shown to be true. Note - I also cannot show them to be false. All we can say is, they don't prove what they claim to prove. The reality is, we don't know. I am not in the habit of replacng "I don't know" with gods.
                            A logical premise needs to be defended to show it is true. Which you claimed was not the case in the premise that the cause must be God, but which I showed you WAS the case by quoting the actual passage, at which point you started this whole kabuki dance about the KCA.

                            Your objections above are no more than mere smoke.

                            You are arguing from silence, claiming that "we don't know what happened before the big bang" so it isn't necessarily true. That's just a cop out. We do know that the big bang created all matter and space and time. That until that moment there was no space, no matter, no energy, no time. Nothing. That is scientific fact. To try to come up with some alternate "unknown" cause as an argument against the KCA is nothing more than trying to appeal to magical thinking. You have to go with what we do know: The universe began to exist. And it had a cause, and then Craig gives a reason why it had to be a personal being who caused it. It is a valid argument. Completely logical. You don't have to accept it. But you can't argue that it fails. Especially if your argument is "we don't know"

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              A logical premise needs to be defended to show it is true. Which you claimed was not the case in the premise that the cause must be God, but which I showed you WAS the case by quoting the actual passage, at which point you started this whole kabuki dance about the KCA.
                              Actually, a premise is merely a statement. It must be accepted as true, or shown to be true, to render the syllogism valid. I have shown two premises in the KCA that have been clamed to be true, but not shown to be true. If the KCA were correctly framed, it would look like this:

                              1) Everyting within the universe that has a beginning has a cause
                              2) The universe had a beginning
                              3) Therefore the universe has a cause.

                              1) has to be structured that way because we have no experience of anything that is NOT part of this universe, so we can say nothing about it. As soon as you properly frame #1, it becomes clear that #1 talks about things within the universe, and #2 talks about the universe itself. That change of context renders the argument unsound.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Your objections above are no more than mere smoke.
                              You are free to characterize my arguments anyway you wish. It doesn't change the logic, Sparko.

                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              You are arguing from silence, claiming that "we don't know what happened before the big bang" so it isn't necessarily true. That's just a cop out. We do know that the big bang created all matter and space and time. That until that moment there was no space, no matter, no energy, no time. Nothing. That is scientific fact. To try to come up with some alternate "unknown" cause as an argument against the KCA is nothing more than trying to appeal to magical thinking. You have to go with what we do know: The universe began to exist. And it had a cause, and then Craig gives a reason why it had to be a personal being who caused it. It is a valid argument. Completely logical. You don't have to accept it. But you can't argue that it fails. Especially if your argument is "we don't know"
                              Again, you can call the argument anything you wish. If you can respond to the actual problem I cited in the logic, I will listen and consider. Otherwise, you don't appear to be making a case that refutes what I said. I did not argue from silence - because I did not argue that the KCA is untrue. I have argued that the flaw in the KCA means that the conclusion has not been shown to be true.

                              You do understand the distinct between the claim, "has not been shown to be true" and the claim, "is therefore false," right?

                              I have also emphasized the point in your statement that I believe you cannot support. We do not know what came before/outside the Universe (or even if those words apply), so we cannot say "there was nothing." Even modern physicists will tell you, AFAIK, that outside the bounds of this universe is an unknown - and may be an unknowable. So we cannot say "there was nothing" or "there was something" with any certainty. It is on the horns of this reality that the KCA impales itself.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-08-2018, 09:23 AM.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Actually, a premise is merely a statement. It must be accepted as true, or shown to be true, to render the syllogism valid. I have shown two premises in the KCA that have been clamed to be true, but not shown to be true. If the KCA were correctly framed, it would look like this:

                                1) Everyting within the universe that has a beginning has a cause
                                2) The universe had a beginning
                                3) Therefore the universe has a cause.

                                1) has to be structured that way because we have no experience of anything that is NOT part of this universe, so we can say nothing about it. As soon as you properly frame #1, it becomes clear that #1 talks about things within the universe, and #2 talks about the universe itself. That change of context renders the argument unsound.



                                You are free to characterize my arguments anyway you wish. It doesn't change the logic, Sparko.



                                Again, you can call the argument anything you wish. If you can respond to the actual problem I cited in the logic, I will listen and consider. Otherwise, you don't appear to be making a case that refutes what I said. I did not argue from silence - because I did not argue that the KCA is untrue. I have argued that the flaw in the KCA means that the conclusion has not been shown to be true.

                                You do understand the distinct between the claim, "has not been shown to be true" and the claim, "is therefore false," right?

                                I have also emphasized the point in your statement that I believe you cannot support. We do not know what came before/outside the Universe (or even if those words apply), so we cannot say "there was nothing." Even modern physicists will tell you, AFAIK, that outside the bounds of this universe is an unknown - and may be an unknowable. So we cannot say "there was nothing" or "there was something" with any certainty. It is on the horns of this reality that the KCA impales itself.
                                There is no problem in the logic. Just you arguing from silence. I can do the same with any logical argument you want to present.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X