Omnipotence and Omnipotent Beings

[The13thMan]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I am agnostic. Sometimes i argue with a person of faith (almost always of the Christian faith) about religion or god. And most every time that i do argue with someone else on this subject i eventually ask two questions at some point in the conversation.

[B]1. The omnipotence of God. Can God (or any being) be omnipotent? [/B]Is it even, by definition of the word, possible? I think the classic question is: Can God create a rock so massive that he himself cannot lift it? This of course is impossible in that both possible solutions to the answer suggest a God that is not omnipotent. I have heard some answers to this question. There are two that i'll mention. I like one more than the other.

The first one, the one i prefer is that God is not truly omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything. Instead he's omnipotent in the sense that he can only do what he wants to do. I can mostly jive with this answer, but it leads into the second question, whether God is good or not.

The second possible answer i've heard is that by answering the question God somehow makes it so that there is some fundamental law of the universe that stops him from doing one or the other. Let's say the universe is finite and god makes a rock that fills the entire space of the universe. Therefore he cannot move it, where would he move it to? Basically it makes it so that if God is incapable of doing something it is not directly his fault, rather someone/something else's. I don't like this answer very much. I actually wouldn't even consider this an answer to the question of God's omnipotence directly, it's actually (in my opinion) just a cop-out to the specific rock paradox.

[B]2. Can God be both omnipotent and good? [/B]I'm sure a lot of people already know what i mean by this. Many people have asked this question before. Can god be all-powerful and yet still good? With all of the suffering in this world why doesn't God do something about it? If he is omnipotent, then surely he can stop all human suffering. If you liked the first answer i gave to the first question, then why does God not want to help us and end our suffering? And if God is omnipotent and still decides not to end the needless suffering, then is God good?

These are questions i put forth not because i think they are unanswerable or unfair to ask a person of faith. I ask these questions because they are questions i've always had and have always attributed to my disbelief in God. I look forward to your responses.
[/FONT]

[Darren]

[SIZE="1"]Oh boy, another one of [I]these[/I] threads.

I am an atheist myself, and while I may disbelieve for different reasons, the questions that you asked (particularly the 2nd) were the same ones I asked on my road to "discovery."

So obviously, I'm biased. I can't even begin to answer any of those questions because I simply don't believe that God exists. However, based on my religious upbringing and the responses from my parents/pastors/elders when I asked these questions, I'll try to answer it from a Christian perspective.

I've never believed that God was omnipotent... Does the bible even suggest that? Or directly say it? I guess it says all-powerful, but that doesn't necessarily mean omnipotent. Let's think about it: In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...

But how long did it take him? 7 days. If he was omnipotent, why couldn't he have created the Heavens and the Earth in a millisecond. and why did he need to rest afterwards? There have been answers to this. For example: That time didn't exist at that point, so the definition of 7 days could have actually only been a second or so. Also, perhaps our perspective of 7 days is different to God. So, even from the time I was little, I've always thought of God as all-powerful in the sense he can do anything with time... He has his limits, but they far surpass any humans. (That also explains the whole war with Satan/end of days scenario)

Now for the second question: Is God good? I've already established that I think, if he does exist, he could pretty much destroy mankind, so it's apparent that hypothetically he could end world suffering, world hunger, AIDS, cancer, etc...

I think I'll take Jim Carrey's line from Bruce Almighty. Something along the lines of "God is just a little kid, standing over an anthill with a magnifying glass." It's even been suggested to me before (by one of my pastors) that it's possible we're not the first humans. That God created another "experiment" before us. He tried to use that to explain the apparent lack of miracles that were so present in the Bible. It's not often we see someone parting major bodies of water, or raining fire from the sky.

I think that in order for God to end all of these things, he would have to constantly kill all the bad people in the world. It would certainly show his presence, and people wouldn't do bad things anymore. We wouldn't have war, murder, torture, rape, etc... However, in that sense, he would be taking away a human's right to choose. Something that's very prominent in the Bible. And if we don't have a right to choose, then we'd all be living in the Garden of Eden right now...

It's one big contradiction that Christians can't really escape from... So, of course the counter-argument was made that he has a plan for everyone and that everything he does, he does for a reason. Suffering leads to strength and so on. Sounds like a watered down version of Darwin's survival of the fittest if you ask me.[/SIZE]

[jomz]

[quote name='Darren'][SIZE="1"]Oh boy, another one of [I]these[/I] threads.

I think that in order for God to end all of these things, he would have to constantly kill all the bad people in the world. It would certainly show his presence, and people wouldn't do bad things anymore. We wouldn't have war, murder, torture, rape, etc... However, in that sense, he would be taking away a human's right to choose. Something that's very prominent in the Bible. And if we don't have a right to choose, then we'd all be living in the Garden of Eden right now...[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Yeah... I agree with this point... It's all in the "Free Will" thing. That's got to be the bug in the equation. If this was taken away, things may not turn out like they are now.

I know I have not added much to the argument, but add "Free Will" to that equation and things might get a bit more confusing.

It's like: He can, but leaves the humans to do it for themselves, if they want to. Add our interaction to other humans, ripple effect and such, and that's our lives in this world, in a nutshell.

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Darren'][SIZE="1"]Oh boy, another one of [I]these[/I] threads.

I am an atheist myself, ...[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Dad-gurn it! I want a believer to reply. I'll give it some more time. [/FONT]
[quote name='Darren'][SIZE="1"]
I think that in order for God to end all of these things, he would have to constantly kill all the bad people in the world. It would certainly show his presence, and people wouldn't do bad things anymore. We wouldn't have war, murder, torture, rape, etc... However, in that sense, he would be taking away a human's right to choose. Something that's very prominent in the Bible. And if we don't have a right to choose, then we'd all be living in the Garden of Eden right now...[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]He doesn't have to do anything, he's omnipotent, he can do anything. If he wanted to end suffering without affecting free will or killing people, then he'd be able to.

Until i hear a better explanation, one that actually makes sense, i'm going to say that God can only either be good or omnipotent. God must pick one.

I don't like the "God's plan" thing. All it does is say that instead of there being suffering that God can stop there is suffering that God planned and executed. And not all suffering is for your own good. There is too much suffering in this world... too much needless suffering. [/FONT]

[TheShinje]

1. Yesi it is possible for God to be omnipotent. If we are to believe that God made this entire universe, and the heavens, then it is possible for him to be everywhere at once. I kinow it's kinda hard to fathom that, because we are looking at this from a purely non-omnipotent perspective and thus, we have a limited capacity to explain omnipotence satisfactorally. Can he create a rock so big he can't lift it? Why? I'm sure he could but what is the point?

2. It is possible for him to be both omnipotent and good. The Bible teaches that evil has come from the rebellion of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Our human suffering is a generational curse stemming from this and our continued rebellion against God in a fallen world. In this context, why should God remove human suffering, wasn't it self inflicted?

We have the promise of God that he will personally intervene to put this world right and break the generational curse of Adam. Our God assures us that this is not as good as it gets,

[Boo]

[size=1]1. If we take God as an all-powerful entity, He could decide to make something He cannot lift and the next moment He [i]could[/i], because He is omnipotent like that. If God decides he does not want to be able to lift it, then He does not allow himself to be able to lift it. Which, like said, does not seem to make much sense.

In any case, the scenario means that you see God as an entity with the Earthly connotation of "power", which is way too limited.

2. Define "good" for everyone and for yourself.
[/size]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Sabre'] In this context, why should God remove human suffering, wasn't it self inflicted?[/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I don't recall eating any strange fruits.

How is it good that I (or for that matter, anyone) have to suffer for the sins of the father?[/color]

[Darren]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]I don't recall eating any strange fruits.
How is it good that I (or for that matter, anyone) have to suffer for the sins of the father?[/color][/QUOTE]
Well, it does say that in the bible, that the sons must suffer the sins of the father. So, if you're a christian, then you kinda answered your own question.
[quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]He doesn't have to do anything, he's omnipotent, he can do anything. If he wanted to end suffering without affecting free will or killing people, then he'd be able to. [/FONT][/QUOTE]
And how would you propose that he did that? I get that he's supposedly all-knowing/all-powerful, but I can't think of a way he could end suffering without taking away free-will or killing a lot of people first. Which, in fact, it says that he will in the book of Revelations... So good? Well, killing a lot of bad people in this world wouldn't be bad by my standards.

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Darren']Well, it does say that in the bible, that the sons must suffer the sins of the father. So, if you're a christian, then you kinda answered your own question. [/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]The "Because I say so" approach hasn't worked with me since I was 3.[/color]

[Darren]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]The "Because I say so" approach hasn't worked with me since I was 3.[/color][/QUOTE]
I think that's the only reason (it's not really a reason. Just a statement) the bible gives... So, take it or leave it because GOD says so! [/sarcasm]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Sabre']If we are to believe that God made this entire universe, and the heavens, then it is possible for him to be everywhere at once. [/quote]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Did God create the entire universe?[/FONT]

[quote name='Sabre']Can he create a rock so big he can't lift it? Why? I'm sure he could but what is the point?.[/quote]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]If he could then it proves that he is not omnipotent, if he cannot then that too proves he is not omnipotent. That's the point of the question. [/FONT]

[quote name='Sabre']why should God remove human suffering, wasn't it self inflicted?[/quote]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]The question isn't why God should or shouldn't, it's why he doesn't. If he is a good and loving God and capable of removing suffering from the world, why doesn't he? And, as i said before, not all suffering can be beneficial. [/FONT]

[quote name='Boo']If we take God as an all-powerful entity, He could decide to make something He cannot lift and the next moment He could,[/quote]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]If he cannot lift it one moment is he not then not omnipotent for that moment in time? And if in the next moment he can lift the rock then in that moment he cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. So i guess in both cases he cannot satisfy the rock paradox. I seriously doubt that there is an answer to this question that actually satisfies the question and leaves God as an omnipotent being in the literal sense. But you're all welcome to keep trying.

[/FONT]

[quote name='Boo']In any case, the scenario means that you see God as an entity with the Earthly connotation of "power", which is way too limited.[/quote]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Then what wouldn't be too limited? Also, what's wrong with it to begin with? Can't an omnipotent being have power in any sense of the word?[/FONT]

[quote name='Boo']Define "good" for everyone and for yourself.[/quote]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I actually remember thinking about this for a moment yesterday when i was writing something in this thread, wondering if anybody would ask that question. I realized that it doesn't matter what my definition of good is or anybody else's. An omnipotent being would be able to satisfy any of the definitions of it. But to answer your question. My idea of good for the sake of this thread mainly has to do with having the sympathy necessary to take action when you witness suffering that you can prevent. If God is omnipotent then he can prevent suffering, and yet he does not. Why?[/FONT]

[quote name='Darren']but I can't think of a way he could end suffering without taking away free-will or killing a lot of people first.[/quote]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]You don't have to think of a way to do it, nor does anybody else. Only God does. Can God? If he's omnipotent, then yes, he should be able to. And at the very least, we can simply focus on one aspect of suffering - disease. Why can't he take away disease? Would that affect free-will? [/FONT]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]A thread wherein I must justify my beliefs to someone who's clearly stated that they're only in it for the sake of arguing? I do believe I lack interest.[/FONT]

[Raiha]

[quote name='Ace'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]A thread wherein I must justify my beliefs to someone who's clearly stated that they're only in it for the sake of arguing? I do believe I lack interest.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I do concur. I believe in the Divine, and it's really nobody else's business but mine. If they want to argue with me they'll be very bored because I'll spend all of my time yawning and saying, "Uh uh, and how do [i]you[/i] feel about that?"[/FONT][/COLOR]

[The13thMan]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I'm so glad you two spent the time to let me know you're not going to participate in my thread. How very thoughtful of you both. =D[/FONT]

[Korey]

[quote name=' Ace']A thread wherein I must justify my beliefs to someone who's clearly stated that they're only in it for the sake of arguing? I do believe I lack interest.[/quote]
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]
Exactly. I'm not about to argue over my beliefs with someone who obviously believes differently than I. I'll leave it at this.

You say tomato.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]
Exactly. I'm not about to argue over my beliefs with someone who obviously believes differently than I. I'll leave it at this.

You say tomato.[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Perhaps you prefer arguing with people that believe the same as you? I'm sorry but i just don't understand this. Arguing with another person who has a different view is such a great thing. You can learn so much. Why would you pass that up?

Also, the questions i asked aren't merely a matter of belief. Nor do you have to believe in God at all to answer those questions. The questions are aimed at any omnipotent being, fictional or not. If you don't want to argue religion or whatever, then don't. There's no need to here.

Once again, thanks for letting me know you're not willing to participate in the conversation. [/FONT]

[Korey]

[quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Perhaps you prefer arguing with people that believe the same as you? I'm sorry but i just don't understand this. Arguing with another person who has a different view is such a great thing. You can learn so much. Why would you pass that up?
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]I would pass it up on the fact that religious views have been argued to death on Otakuboards and I'd rather stay clear of the shrapnel, because someone always takes special measures to add their own opinion and shoot down the others and dismiss them as silly or even downright wrong.

I'm all up for discussion, but arguing is rather pointless if neither side is able to concede even just an inch for their beliefs. Know what I mean?[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Allamorph]

Arguing with another person who has a different view is such a great thing. You can learn so much. Why would you pass that up?

Because you're it's a waste of our time.

The purpose of this thread is to argue. Not to learn, not to understand, not to be any more enlightened. To argue.

But you can do that any old place, right? Edited February 7, 2015 by Allamorph

[Gavin]

[quote name='Ace'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]A thread wherein I must justify my beliefs to someone who's clearly stated that they're only in it for the sake of arguing? I do believe I lack interest.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"]While I agree for the sake of discussion I will attempt to answer the questions posed while stating that I am not here to dissect my beliefs to someone else's satisfaction. These are my answers 13th if you disagree fine, but I won't be elaborating further than I have.

In answer to the first question, aside from it evidently being posed in such a way as to be unanswerable except to prove that God is indeed not omnipotent the simple fact is that is that he is believed to be omnipotent therefore he could do both and neither.

In answering your second question our interpretation of the word good is based on our mortal and non-omnipotent view of the world and events therein. Who is to say that from an omnipotent point of view God views himself as "Good" for allowing 6 billion of us to flourish across the face of a planet he is believed to have created and use it's resources for our own good. In fact one could argue that the damage we have caused to the planet and it's other inhabitants might not warrant the intervention of an omnipotent being to make everything a bed of roses. "Good" as others have said is far too vague a term to discuss when dealing with an omnipotent entity.

And 13th please don't create threads simply because you want to argue with someone and then disregard their responses simply to continue arguing. The obvious fact is that religion is about personal belief and obviously that will differ from person to person. When or if you ever meet God feel free to pose these questions to him directly.[/SIZE]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]I would pass it up on the fact that religious views have been argued to death on Otakuboards and I'd rather stay clear of the shrapnel, because someone always takes special measures to add their own opinion and shoot down the others and dismiss them as silly or even downright wrong.

I'm all up for discussion, but arguing is rather pointless if neither side is able to concede even just an inch for their beliefs. Know what I mean?[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]It's not pointless if somebody learns something from it. Which i often times do. I've had many discussions here on OB that i remember and that i have learned from.

But certainly, if noone learns anything and no opinions are changed, then i would consider it pointless. Whenever i start any conversation/debte/argument/whatever i always hope that that does not happen. [/FONT]

[quote name='Allamorph']The purpose of this thread is to argue. Not to learn, not to understand, not to be any more enlightened. To argue.[/quote]

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Unfortunately you're entitled to that opinion. Although, if you are to imply that i created this thread for the sole purpose of arguing, then you would be wrong. I created this thread in the genuine hope that i would hear sound, logical responses to the questions so that i may better understand them and learn from them.

Quite frankly, your pessimistic view is a load of crap. I really did start this thread in the hope to get good discussion from it... but people, such as yourself, have tried to stop that.

To everyone else that tried sincerely to answer my questions, thank you. [/FONT]

[Raiha]

[quote name='The13thMan']
Quite frankly, your pessimistic view is a load of crap. I really did start this thread in the hope to get good discussion from it... but people, such as yourself, have tried to stop that.

To everyone else that tried sincerely to answer my questions, thank you.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][CENTER][FONT="Times New Roman"]Actually I'm pretty sure if they wanted to stop it, two moderators in collusion could figure out a way to shut down this conversation entirely. But they don't, because that would be bad.

And honestly, you expect logic to back up the theory of an Omnipotent being? Are you kidding me? The very fact that humans have faith in a higher power defies the very definition of logic. Provable and unprovable, faith in the evidence of things unseen and so on and so forth. That's just silly.[/FONT][/CENTER][/COLOR]

[Tophel]

As for the questions posed by the OP, I should point out here, for those who may think these questions are thinly veiled attacks on religion this is not necessarily so. These are interesting and fundamental questions which have been discussed by theologians for a long time. Of course I cannot read minds and do not know if 13th had any ulterior motives which has more to do with creating mischief than with promoting discussion but I would like to take it on face value and assume the latter.

Also, I think it is important that believers and non-believers talk to one another. I think it to be narrow-minded and dangerously insular to only talk to people who share your own belief system. Talking does not need to be prosetylizing, either one way or another. Talking helps in many ways, not the least of which is the strengthening of one's faith by understanding it better and more clearly. Talking is not weakness and questioning is not disloyalty.

The substantive answer to the questions posed by the OPer has been made by one or two posts already in this thread. It is the fundamental idea of Free Will. This is fundamental to the Christian faith. Let me explain.

Why does God let suffering happen? One answer is that we cannot understand the mind of God. This answer is simple, requires little thought and covers everything. Unlike other progressive theologians who may argue that such an answer is contrary to the divine gift of Reason to Man, I don't think it is any less valid. To me, it is a legitimate point of view. But it is limited, and it does shut down any and all discussions. And I understand also why it may be regarded as a 'cop-out'.

So putting aside that all-out excuse, why does God let suffering occur? If we say that suffering occurs because it is caused by Man so it is our fault and responsibility, that doesn't really answer the question. If we accept God is omnipotent and God is good, it should not matter who is responsible for the suffering. God, being infinitely compassionate, would not let it happen.

There does seem a contradiction. If God is all-powerful that means He can do anything. If God is all loving, this means He would not tolerate suffering. The two, together, seems to suggest that there should be no suffering. Either God is all-powerful but not infinitely compassionate, so He can tolerate suffering (for what ever reason), or He is infinitely compassionate but not all-powerful (so he cannot intervene).

How do we explain this contradiction? It seems to me the answer lies in Free Will. If Man is really created in God's image, we are all God's Children. As such we all have a soul and we are endowed with Reason and Free Will. If God intervenes, His presence is demonstrated and Free Will is ripped from us. To know God, not through Faith but through Science, through what we regard as 'Proof', is to be imprisoned and bound by that knowledge. Our divine gifts of curiosity, intellect and reason would not be exercised. We would fall totally dependant on God. We would no longer have Free Will but be slaves. If God is truly loving and compassionate, this is not what He would want.

So God cannot intervene, so suffering exists.

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='The13thMan][FONT="Trebuchet MS"']Quite frankly, your pessimistic view is a load of crap. I really did start this thread in the hope to get good discussion from it... but people, such as yourself, have tried to stop that. [/FONT][/quote]This really sums up the problem, you have a history of dismissing others simply because they don't view things the same. I know you like to see it otherwise, but you often come back with [I]you're wrong or your point is [U]crap[/U][/I] just for the sake of continuing the discussion/argument.

It's not that people aren't interested in the discussion, they've already seen how you operate. I'm not trying to be mean, but you're already dismissing people's concerns that you had no interest other than to start an argument.

It's also why we end up fighting too remember? =P So they're not interested, it's not the end of the world, however I will say this...

Guys, if you don't want to discuss it, how about not bothering to reply to the thread in the first place? It's not that hard really.

[James]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']

Guys, if you don't want to discuss it, how about not bothering to reply to the thread in the first place? It's not that hard really.[/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium][i]Thank you[/i], Rach.

One of the worst things on OB - and something that regularly spawns off-topic arguments - is when someone jumps into a thread just to declare that it is pointless.

So, yes, if you actually aren't interested in engaging in the debate, please do not post in this thread. That goes for everyone, including staff (if a staff member classifies a thread as pointless and it's not part of an actual moderation note, that's a problem). I'm sure Rach will deal with posts/members who continue to do this.[/font]

[Kisaoda]

Sure, I'll bite.

I follow the belief of both Aquinas and C.S. Lewis, worded so perfectly in the following statement:

[I]His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.[/I]

A boulder that's too heavy to lift or, as Homer Simpson states, "A burrito too large to eat" is not a sign of a lack of omnipotence; it's a matter of being logically unsound. So yes, the argument would still hold that God can indeed be omnipotent and not being capable of logically unsound actions (as one could also argue, at least in the Judeo-Christian system, that God is pure Logic as much as He is Love or Justice).

The second point made in regards to being either fully omnipotent or fully good...or neither... is a case in which I can state with a fair amount of confidence that God is fully [I]both[/I]. It's not a matter of sympathy (despite God having shown that He is one sympathetic to our plight), it's a matter of right and wrong. One can perform a sympathetic act and be doing the wrong thing. Of course, this isn't a blanket statment indicating that God never does sympathetic actions. Far from it! But keep in mind that, yes, God is aware of the actions, reactions, truth and consequences of each act He performs. As we are not, we therefore cannot assume that we know more of the situation than He.

To get to your specific question, though: [i]With all of the suffering in this world why doesn't God do something about it?[/i] Simple. He Can't. Not because He is incapable of doing so; He can erase the entire world should He so choose. No, He cannot because in doing so, we would then introduce His previous gift of [I]free will[/I] and the consequences thereof. You cannot [I]force[/I] someone from performing a good deed. You cannot somehow have a race or a world thrown into sin somehow be 'redeemed' without some price to pay (God's Justice). Fortunately for us, God [I]did[/I] present an unfathomable amount of sympathy toward His creation through the form of the Christ. It was through this one act that we paid nothing and He paid everything. Through this, we are indeed redeemed.

Does this mean the world is now bright and fluffy and oh-so-sparkly clean? No. The consequences of sin are vast and reaching. Something born from sin (imperfection) cannot ever be made sinless (perfect). So we are still within sin's wake. God cannot change that. But what He [I]can[/I] and [I]did[/I] do was provide to us a way to both lift our bearing of it and find a way out.

Nothing short of omnipotence could do that.