Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Monster Rain wrote:Good thing I didn't say anything of the sort.

You referred to them both in terms of faith, an effect to draw a similarity. If you, in fact, if you didn't intend to ever compare the two things, then you'd be happy to retract your point comparing the two, yeah?

In truth, there is no direct evidence for the effect of Dark Matter. It's existence can be inferred by observing the Universe, but then there are those who would say that what some call the effect of Dark Matter are actually caused by Loop Quantum Gravity or Modified Gravity. And call me old-fashioned but I'm still holding out for Einstein's Anti-Gravity to make a comeback in a big way.

Yes, there is no direct evidence for dark matter. I said the same thing in my last post. The point is determining something as being likely based on calculations and other observations, and then going looking for that thing, is wholly different to accepting something as a point of faith. They're just different. It's that simple.

whatwhat wrote:Pascal was referring to the christian god. The wager is of the existence of the christian god. It was even first released in a Christian apologetics book.

The christian god is outlined as accepting those with faith and belief. Hence the idea of Pascal's Wager. Otherwise it would be called Pascal's very slim chance of winning but he'll have a go anyway.

Well duh. That Pascal restricted it to purely the Christian God is the problem people have been explaining throughout this thread. That you can’t arbitrarily limit the wager to ‘Christian God’ and ‘Not Christian God’ and assume anything near a 50/50 probability is the exact problem with the wager.

In reality God could take a near infinite number of forms, so it really is ‘Pascal’s very slim chance of winning but he’ll have a go anyway’. Which is a very silly way of looking at faith.

Monster Rain wrote:Well, not really. Doesn't the term "wager" imply that something is won and lost? It's not just the fact that there's a choice. Not all choices would be considered wagers.

Yes, wager does mean that, but that’s got nothing to do with what’s being argued here. To go back a couple of steps, I made the point that God is unknowable, and could very be angered by someone choosing to believe in him as a result of a balance of probabilities. You responded that’s why it’s called a wager, but the point here is not what a wager is, but the nature of this specific wager.

The point is that Pascal reduced the number of outcomes to produce an incorrect outcome. Now, he was working at the very beginning of probability theory, at a time when religious understanding was nowhere near modern levels, so Pascal has a decent excuse for the failings in his theory. We can’t extend that some kindness to people who still think the wager is sensible today.

Orlanth wrote:Pascals Wager is not interested in other religions, they are subsets of unbelief in Christ. This is not a false dichotomy because it is correct within the paradigm of the subject matter. There are two actual choices: faith in Christ or any other option.

Taking a wide range of options, collapsing them under a broad category and assigning them equal probability is one of the best ways to screw up a probability analysis.

It’s like looking at a horse race, noting a horse pays 8-1 on a win, and then thinking this is a great option because there are two states – the horse wins and the horse does not win. If someone was to point out that there are actually loads of different outcomes in which the horse does not win, such as each of the other 14 horses all winning, you can’t reply that doesn’t matter because we’re only worried about this one horse.

You are trying to apply the Wager beyond its bounds. It is intended as an exercise to determine wherther there is a point to continuing with a life of faith, not an absolute Truth. Christianity has more than enough points of absolute Truth, whichcan only be accepted or rejected wholecloth, such as Jesus claim 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life, noone comes to the Father except through me.' The Wager builds on this foundation.
Its internally consistent, you are trying to break something that isnt broken by placing it outside its setting.

No, the point is that its setting is broken. You can’t built a probabilistic rationale for belief in something that is beyond rational understanding. It is a matter of faith.

Mannahnin wrote:I'd be very reluctant to equate the WBC specifically with Christianity, partially for the same reason Monster Rain cited (their repulsive behavior isn't really representative of Christian behavior in general)

Not being generally representative doesn't make you not Christian. Stalin isn't representative of atheists, but he was an atheist. WBC proclaim Christ as their Lord and Saviour, and Stalin believed there was no God - so they're both part of their respective groups.

It is fair to say that when talking about Christianity in general we shouldn't list WBC and other extremely unusual examples, as it can give the impression that they're generally representative, but that's very different to excising them from the group entirely.

Monster Rain wrote:
Jews and Muslims use the 10 commandments as well.

Sure, but they also interpret them in different ways. The classic example of this is 'Thou Shalt not Kill' vs. 'Though Shalt not Murder'.

Monster Rain wrote:
As to the Judgment of Christianity thing, I simply don't accept that the WBC should be associated with mainstream Christian denominations any more than Al Qaeda should be associated with mainstream Islam. In fact, one would be considered a bigot for doing so.

Really? I mean, my PhD research is generally about Middle Eastern politics, and extremist Muslim groups in particular. I work with this stuff on a daily basis, and I'm about the least judgmental person, with respect to Islam, that you will ever find (you can even go back and look at my record of defending Islam on this board, if you so desire). And even I associate Al Qaeda with Islam. They're a Muslim group. An extremist Muslim group to be sure, but still Muslim. That doesn't mean that all Muslims are responsible for what Al Qaeda has done, or what Al Qaeda believes, but there are certain relevant commonalities that relate the two; like belief in Muhammad as the prophet of Allah, and the acceptance of the Five Pillars.

Similarly, the WBC is a Christian group. That doesn't mean that all Christians are responsible for what they do or what they believe, but there are certain commonalities that relate the two; like the acceptance of Christ as savior, and the use of the New Testament as a holy text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, atheism doesn't really have any doctrine. Perhaps the better question would be "was Stalin a socialist?" I would consider him to have been one, even though I'll admit that he wasn't following socialist doctrine very closely.

That is a better example.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
Jews and Muslims use the 10 commandments as well.

Sure, but they also interpret them in different ways. The classic example of this is 'Thou Shalt not Kill' vs. 'Though Shalt not Murder'.

Monster Rain wrote:
As to the Judgment of Christianity thing, I simply don't accept that the WBC should be associated with mainstream Christian denominations any more than Al Qaeda should be associated with mainstream Islam. In fact, one would be considered a bigot for doing so.

Really? I mean, my PhD research is generally about Middle Eastern politics, and extremist Muslim groups in particular. I work with this stuff on a daily basis, and I'm about the least judgmental person, with respect to Islam, that you will ever find (you can even go back and look at my record of defending Islam on this board, if you so desire). And even I associate Al Qaeda with Islam. They're a Muslim group. An extremist Muslim group to be sure, but still Muslim. That doesn't mean that all Muslims are responsible for what Al Qaeda has done, or what Al Qaeda believes, but there are certain relevant commonalities that relate the two; like belief in Muhammad as the prophet of Allah, and the acceptance of the Five Pillars.

Similarly, the WBC is a Christian group. That doesn't mean that all Christians are responsible for what they do or what they believe, but there are certain commonalities that relate the two; like the acceptance of Christ as savior, and the use of the New Testament as a holy text.

I'll grant that they have certain commonalities, and I've already stated that I'm sure that they believe that they are Christians, but to me it would all boil down to this statement.

John 13:34-35 wrote:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

They really don't seem to be following this directive, laid down by Jesus himself, as the way that Christians should be identified. Now before someone says that "I don't believe in Christianity so these passages don't mean anything to me" let me say that that is fine, but for someone who would profess to be a Christian it should mean an awful lot.

If I were a member of the WBC I would probably interpret that passage as an instruction to love all other disciples of Jesus, and given how narrow their reading of the Bible is that's probably not a very large group.

dogma wrote:If I were a member of the WBC I would probably interpret that passage as an instruction to love all other disciples of Jesus, and given how narrow their reading of the Bible is that's probably not a very large group.

Sure, that makes sense from their point of view. I would only argue that their worldview is demonstrably different than that of mainstream Christian denominations.

I am unaware of anybody saying that WBC is mainstream. As such, I'm going to be a creep again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Monster Rain wrote:Sure, that makes sense from their point of view. I would only argue that their worldview is demonstrably different than that of mainstream Christian denominations.

Yep, their world view is wildly different to other Christian groups, and it is fair to say they are not representative of the whole. But they are still Christian, just like Stalin is not representative of atheists, but is still an atheist.

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Sure, that makes sense from their point of view. I would only argue that their worldview is demonstrably different than that of mainstream Christian denominations.

Yep, their world view is wildly different to other Christian groups, and it is fair to say they are not representative of the whole. But they are still Christian, just like Stalin is not representative of atheists, but is still an atheist.

Yeah, agree that they believe that they are Christians. I just happen to think that there's more to being something than simply using it's language and symbols in your Maximum Trolling like the WBC does.

This next bit is completely unrelated to you, Sebster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu

I also post links.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also, how in the hell did I even get roped into this discussion in the first place? How did this get so far off topic?

The WBC can go screw, that's my final say in the matter. There is no spoon. Goodnight everyone.

Monster Rain wrote:I would only argue that their worldview is demonstrably different than that of mainstream Christian denominations.

Sure, I'll buy that at face value, but I'm not really all that interested in what constitutes a mainstream Christian. From my perspective its an argument that naturally tends to fall into No True Scotsman territory. I'm much more interested in questions of category as, at the very least, they can be resolved with internally valid arguments (though obviously external validity is another matter).

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, agree that they believe that they are Christians. I just happen to think that there's more to being something than simply using it's language and symbols in your Maximum Trolling like the WBC does.

Fair point, and when talking about the WBC and their relation to Christianity it is necessary to point out their actions are a long way from the core teachings of Christianity. But ultimately, if a group is using the Bible as it's primary source it really has to be considered Christian.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I would only argue that their worldview is demonstrably different than that of mainstream Christian denominations.

Sure, I'll buy that at face value, but I'm not really all that interested in what constitutes a mainstream Christian. From my perspective its an argument that naturally tends to fall into No True Scotsman territory.

Okay, one more and then I really am going to bed.

The reason, to me, that this isn't a No True Scotsman type situation is that there are clearly defined ways in which a Christian is supposed to behave in the Bible. If, say, there is a checklist for behaviors that would make one to be said to be a certain type of person, and one didn't meet the criteria on the checklist, would they be the type of person that the checklist describes? And if not, would saying that this person who doesn't meet the Criteria on the checklist isn't the type of person that the checklist describes a No True Scotsman fallacy? Does that even make sense?

I'm very tired...

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, agree that they believe that they are Christians. I just happen to think that there's more to being something than simply using it's language and symbols in your Maximum Trolling like the WBC does.

Fair point, and when talking about the WBC and their relation to Christianity it is necessary to point out their actions are a long way from the core teachings of Christianity. But ultimately, if a group is using the Bible as it's primary source it really has to be considered Christian.

Can't they be considered as a lunatic fringe subset of Christianity that really shouldn't be lumped in with Christians in general discussion? Kind of like lumping Al Qaeda in with Islam and bringing up Yoko Ono when discussing the Beatles?

Monster Rain wrote:
The reason, to me, that this isn't a No True Scotsman type situation is that there are clearly defined ways in which a Christian is supposed to behave in the Bible. If, say, there is a checklist for behaviors that would make one to be said to be a certain type of person, and one didn't meet the criteria on the checklist, would they be the type of person that the checklist describes? And if not, would saying that this person who doesn't meet the Criteria on the checklist isn't the type of person that the checklist describes a No True Scotsman fallacy? Does that even make sense?

It really depends on how you determine who is, and isn't a Christian; and how you resolve that determination in concert with the one pertaining to what makes a good, or bad Christian.

I'm generally of the mind that Christianity is defined by the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, but I also know that others define it by the acceptance of the Nicene Creed. I've heard of membership being defined by works as well, but that's a bit trickier than a simple profession of belief. Are you not a Christian if not all your works are good, or are you a Christian if most of your works are good? What if you try really hard to enact good works, but end up failing anyway? Now, none of the answers are necessarily indicative a No True Scotsman fallacy, but in my experience its very easy for them to become one. For example, you could demarcate Christian and non-Christian by stating that no true Christian would ever do good works less than 51% of the time. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that your argument has done that, I'm merely explaining my aversion to your approach.

To me works come in once we start assessing the 'quality' (for lack of a better word) of a Christian, and thereby sidestep the problem altogether.

sebster wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Pascal was referring to the christian god. The wager is of the existence of the christian god. It was even first released in a Christian apologetics book.

The christian god is outlined as accepting those with faith and belief. Hence the idea of Pascal's Wager. Otherwise it would be called Pascal's very slim chance of winning but he'll have a go anyway.

Well duh. That Pascal restricted it to purely the Christian God is the problem people have been explaining throughout this thread. That you can’t arbitrarily limit the wager to ‘Christian God’ and ‘Not Christian God’ and assume anything near a 50/50 probability is the exact problem with the wager.

In reality God could take a near infinite number of forms, so it really is ‘Pascal’s very slim chance of winning but he’ll have a go anyway’. Which is a very silly way of looking at faith

'Well duh' yeh exactly. By defining the theory as this earlier: "It is Pascal's Wager because it proposes a situation where there is either a God or there isn't, and allows people to choose. That is the wager. " I felt like you needed to be told. Well duh.

Besides in the context when the theory was made there really wasn't the spread of information there is now. It was entirely possible to grow up in a society where only two choices where foreseeable as only two belief systems were the norm. Not unlikely that anything else besides those two choices was easily dismissed due to the lack of hardly anyone around him believing it, or information about it. So really arguing about the theory on that basis is just pointing out the obvious flaw. Well duh.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Pascals Wager is not interested in other religions, they are subsets of unbelief in Christ. This is not a false dichotomy because it is correct within the paradigm of the subject matter. There are two actual choices: faith in Christ or any other option.

Yes, and the set 'any other option' is much, much larger than the set 'faith in Christ'. In fact, its infinitely larger. Since Pascal's wager is predicated on the idea that each of the two sets is equally probable the fact that one of them is actually infinitely large invalidates the argument. Infinite sets are infinitely more probable than sets of 1 when all elements of all sets are granted equal weight.

From within the paradigm there are two options. Faith in Christ or any other option. Your 'weighting' is irrelevant, besides not all faith options are equally weighted.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
You are trying to apply the Wager beyond its bounds. It is intended as an exercise to determine wherther there is a point to continuing with a life of faith, not an absolute Truth.

The basic forumaltion of Pascal's Wager is based on the premise that one's faith will eventually be proven correct or incorrect in the afterlife. So yes, its deals in absolute truth.

In one way yes, but it carries an underlying assumption, it is a massage to those from a churched background who beleive in Christianity to some extent or other but have backslidden from the faith.
This is relevant as Christianity is internally consistent and withstands logical strutiny, more so than any other faith. Many are attracted to Christianity, but not attracted to many Christians. This makes sense too, if something is accessible to all you cant really pick and choose who else agrees.
You are trying to place it as a comment to apply to anyone, this is not its intention.
You need to look at it within its paradigm.

Its not an absolute truth in that it doesnt apply to everyone in all situations. Pascals Wager is not relevant to say a Buddhist or Moslem. It is NOT a tool of conversion, for it to be valid the person looking at the wager must already beleive that Christianty at some level makes sense/greater sense as a faith choice. As there are probably hundreds of millions of people worldwide in that bracket the Wager has validity and purpose.

Your 'error' is trying to apply pure mathematical logic to it. Pascal knew his maths and would be aware of the limitations of the Wager. This doesnt make it a false dichotomy or illogical unless you try to aplly it beyond its bounds. This normally only occurs if one is trying to break it. The true fallacy is trying to insist on aplying pure mathamatical logic without limiting assumptions to a daily life application. Pure logic is for the hard sciences, maths and physics, and is hard to aplly even there which of course is why Theories outnumber Laws; its not for politics or theology. When applied to a common application a heavy basis of assumptions and standpoints are common.
Assumption does not mean assumptive in the negative sense. Every time you make a subset diagram and label the various circles you are creating the assumptions for the set. The entire universal set for Pascals wager is that Christianity alone holds logical sense and thus is either right or wrong accepted or not. If Christianity is true all other faiths are void, if it is not then everything is void.

dogma wrote:
This is a fundamental tenet of logic. Answering 'yes' to any possible question is far more definitive than a 'not yes' response.

To the question of Faith in Jesus is concerned a 'not yes' is a 'no' response. Christianity is very clear on that point. Hence the internal consistency.

Orlanth wrote:
From within the paradigm there are two options. Faith in Christ or any other option. Your 'weighting' is irrelevant, besides not all faith options are equally weighted.

Pascal's Wager is an argument from probability; weighting is absolutely relevant. Pascal himself weights the options in his argument, repeatedly. I'm claiming that he weighted them incorrectly.

Moreover, if all possible options (read: not broad categories) are not granted equal weight, then again the argument collapses due to the assumption of faith. Notably, if you are right (and you''re not, you're flatly wrong), and Pascal is correct to consider Christianity as equal to all other possible options lumped into a single category, then Pascal has fully demonstrated faith in Christianity; making his wager unnecessary.

Orlanth wrote:
In one way yes, but it carries an underlying assumption, it is a massage to those from a churched background who beleive in Christianity to some extent or other but have backslidden from the faith.

That's fine, but its still a fallacious argument as Pascal has created a false dichotomy.

Orlanth wrote:
This is relevant as Christianity is internally consistent and withstands logical strutiny, more so than any other faith.

Something is either internally consistent or not, nothing can be 'more' internally consistent than anything else.

Orlanth wrote:
You need to look at it within its paradigm.

I am, and within its paradigm its false. Its a base assessment of probability based on a flawed understanding of what has a chance at being correct. Simply because someone believes that something is more probable does not actually make it so.

Orlanth wrote:
Your 'error' is trying to apply pure mathematical logic to it. Pascal knew his maths and would be aware of the limitations of the Wager. This doesnt make it a false dichotomy or illogical unless you try to aplly it beyond its bounds.

Its an argument purely from probability. Seriously, that's what it is, and it isn't even limited to a Christian God. Pascal posits that there are two choices: belief in God, and non-belief in God. Whether or not he considers these two choices equivalent isn't really relevant to his argument (it was relevant to your formulation of the wager), what matters is that the number of choices is finite. Against this, Pascal argues, there is laid an infinite potential for gain.

Pascal wrote:
But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all...

However, Pascal was wrong. The set of choices is not finite as, no matter the formulation, either the set of 'belief' or 'non-belief' will be infinite. This means that, rather having a small set of possible choices, one of which will lead to infinite gain, you have an infinite set of choices, one of which will lead to infinite gain. In the first instance there is a relatively low risk for an impossibly large reward, in the second instance there is an infinite risk for an infinite reward. And this is before even considering the various possible 'hells' that Pascal intentionally leaves out of the argument.

Orlanth wrote:
Pure logic is for the hard sciences, maths and physics, and is hard to aplly even there which of course is why Theories outnumber Laws; its not for politics or theology.

There's no distinction between theory and law in the hard sciences. They're all just theories. Moreover, just about every philosopher in the last 200 years would disagree with your belief that logic cannot be applied to philosophy, which is what Pascal's wager is. Theology involves discussing the nature of God, philosophy has purview over whether or not one can, or should, believe in God.

Orlanth wrote:
When applied to a common application a heavy basis of assumptions and standpoints are common.

Pascal's wager is far from common. I'm fairly certain that the average person doesn't go around calculating the probability that he will be rewarded for his faith on a daily basis.

Orlanth wrote:
The entire universal set for Pascals wager is that Christianity alone holds logical sense and thus is either right or wrong accepted or not. If Christianity is true all other faiths are void, if it is not then everything is void.

Again, that already assumes faith in the Christian religion; rendering the wager unnecessary.

Orlanth wrote:
To the question of Faith in Jesus is concerned a 'not yes' is a 'no' response. Christianity is very clear on that point. Hence the internal consistency.

"Not yes" is a more inclusive (read:stronger) form of "no", so I'm not certain what you're on about.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
The reason, to me, that this isn't a No True Scotsman type situation is that there are clearly defined ways in which a Christian is supposed to behave in the Bible. If, say, there is a checklist for behaviors that would make one to be said to be a certain type of person, and one didn't meet the criteria on the checklist, would they be the type of person that the checklist describes? And if not, would saying that this person who doesn't meet the Criteria on the checklist isn't the type of person that the checklist describes a No True Scotsman fallacy? Does that even make sense?

It really depends on how you determine who is, and isn't a Christian; and how you resolve that determination in concert with the one pertaining to what makes a good, or bad Christian.

I'm generally of the mind that Christianity is defined by the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, but I also know that others define it by the acceptance of the Nicene Creed. I've heard of membership being defined by works as well, but that's a bit trickier than a simple profession of belief. Are you not a Christian if not all your works are good, or are you a Christian if most of your works are good? What if you try really hard to enact good works, but end up failing anyway? Now, none of the answers are necessarily indicative a No True Scotsman fallacy, but in my experience its very easy for them to become one. For example, you could demarcate Christian and non-Christian by stating that no true Christian would ever do good works less than 51% of the time. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that your argument has done that, I'm merely explaining my aversion to your approach.

To me works come in once we start assessing the 'quality' (for lack of a better word) of a Christian, and thereby sidestep the problem altogether.

I understand what you're saying. Without going into a full blown Bible study on the subject, I'd just like to say that in the Bible itself there is mention made of false teachers and that it's possible to appear as a Christian but not be one.

Acts 20: 28-30 wrote:28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.[a] Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30[b]Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

Emphasis mine. Obviously this isn't an exhaustively researched rebuttal, but I think it shows that my point isn't entirely invalid.

On the subject of good works, to my knowledge none of the denominations that I am aware of require them for Salvation. Obviously they are encouraged, and some denominations claim that good works are a natural extension of living a redeemed life.

The Roman Catholics have their own ideas about it, as you can read here.

I'd only like to point this particular bit:

But is not this continual acting "with one eye on heaven", with which Professor Jodl reproaches Catholic moral teaching, the meanest "mercenary spirit" and greed which necessarily vitiates to the core all moral action? Can there be any question of morality, if it is only the desire for eternal bliss or simply the fear of hell that determines one to do good and avoid evil? Such a disposition is certainly far from being the ideal of Catholic morality. On the Contrary, the Church proclaims to all her children that pure love of God is the first and supreme commandment (cf. Mark 12:30). It is our highest ideal to act out of love. For he who truly loves God would keep His commandments, even though there were no eternal reward in the next life.

The nice thing about the bible is it can say just about anything you want it to so I'm not sure using it as a source of rebuttal is going to be very strong. It predicted 9/11 as well as the coming of Shapiro's deli, for example. Sure you can get someone to say "no, this is what it means", but you can line up 10 people that will say that and each will say something different.

Ahtman wrote:The nice thing about the bible is it can say just about anything you want it to so I'm not sure using it as a source of rebuttal is going to be very strong. It predicted 9/11 as well as the coming of Shapiro's deli, for example. Sure you can get someone to say "no, this is what it means", but you can line up 10 people that will say that and each will say something different.

Luckily, since the concept of False Teachers isn't really much of a hotly debated topic, that isn't the case here.

It seems we have taken Hawking about as far as he can go, so I think we'll close the thread now.