Evidence For God (I'd love to hear feedback)

[smaller]

All Knowing. All powerful. Omniscient, Omnipotent. In navigation the fixed point by which all other points are relative. Truth.

You understand however that exactly zero of the infamous Om's are empirically provable.

A statement based on hypocrisy. The fact you say the argument there is a moral imperative is not a valid one, is a moral imperative.

Moral imperatives exist in societies without any form of God whatsoever therein, U.S. included first and foremost. I never said there was none. Only that same exists apart from God and 'ethics' based. Similar to psychiatry/psychology as the secular replacement for God.

s

 

[Deavonreye]

But God is an absolute and there can not be more than one according to the definition and you have described the perfect justice using both subjective and objective points of view held together at once. There is no guesswork here in your conviction. It is accurate. You have the Word of God in you because you spoke it. Now if you walk in it, this rules your moral reasoning and actions.

This is all still entirely vague, and relies upon man made "beliefs". Again, any number of factors could be in play. Still, I call it as I see it. Necessity of people controling their actions for the sake of the society as a whole. Nothing outside this matters.

 

[ivdavid]

This reasoning would [then] make true many other non-christian claims. We can make assumptions all day long, but until there is a way to repeatedly test [with similar/same results] it, then the title of "truth" must remain on the shelf.

It would give scope for many other non-christian claims to be true only if these other systems are completely logically consistent within themselves and the observable world. I don't believe they are.

b) Do you mean the above in a moralistic sense where you are stating that certain actions ought not to be done at all by anyone because they are inherently evil - and because man ought not to do evil?

Both A and B are true.

Like I said, it's logically inconsistent to derive a moral 'ought' from a descriptive 'is' in a purely materialistic world. How do you work around this contradiction? If you meant something entirely different, then kindly fill me in on that.

We have become an intelligent species and are well equipped to make a determination upon what isn't good for the society as a whole, . . . and more importantly, what is appropriate for a person's personal rights.

You already assume that the materialistic world 'ought' to behave a certain way - when you cannot make such prescriptive statements. You are permitted only descriptive statements. It's one thing to describe the human species exhibiting the property/tendency to survive - it's another thing to prescribe that the human species ought to survive. Such 'ought' statements simply cannot be made in a purely materialistic world.
I know I'm repeating myself coarse, but do you see this?

 

[childeye]

This is all still entirely vague, and relies upon man made "beliefs". Again, any number of factors could be in play. Still, I call it as I see it. Necessity of people controling their actions for the sake of the society as a whole. Nothing outside this matters.

You lack confidence in yourself. This is why I said you will find yourself at the cross as I did. Of course it depends on man's beliefs speaking entirely from a subjective point of view. That is the point, we can't make up Truth. You call it as you see it. Well done for nothing more could be expected in honesty. But how you see is therefore relevant.
So it is you are wrong to say nothing outside matters unless you are prepared to call yourself all knowing.

 

[Deavonreye]

It would give scope for many other non-christian claims to be true only if these other systems are completely logically consistent within themselves and the observable world. I don't believe they are.


Like I said, it's logically inconsistent to derive a moral 'ought' from a descriptive 'is' in a purely materialistic world. How do you work around this contradiction? If you meant something entirely different, then kindly fill me in on that.


You already assume that the materialistic world 'ought' to behave a certain way - when you cannot make such prescriptive statements. You are permitted only descriptive statements. It's one thing to describe the human species exhibiting the property/tendency to survive - it's another thing to prescribe that the human species ought to survive. Such 'ought' statements simply cannot be made in a purely materialistic world.
I know I'm repeating myself coarse, but do you see this?

Okay, let's drop the "ought". You are focusing too much on that word choice. It simply means that in order for the society to survive, people are expected to obey rules governing that society. Those who don't are set aside or pay a penalty.

 

[childeye]

=smaller;571061]You understand however that exactly zero of the infamous Om's are empirically provable.

That is like saying no one can know the Truth by which one would have to know the Truth to say that.
Love is provable in science as necessary for sanity.

Light can't be seen, yet without it we can't see.

Moral imperatives exist in societies without any form of God whatsoever therein,

Satan is called the god of this world. The antichrist will make it illegal for the sake of peace to believe there is a God and in so doing will make himself out to be god. You amongst most here, already recognize there exists a false god in people who deny they have any false god in them. So I wonder why you would say this?

U.S. included first and foremost. I never said there was none. Only that same exists apart from God and 'ethics' based. Similar to psychiatry/psychology as the secular replacement for God.

Okay so perhaps I should take your other statement with a grain of salt.

 

[ivdavid]

Okay, let's drop the "ought". You are focusing too much on that word choice.

But that's what your belief system rests on - The implicit "oughts" that you take for granted and yet want to 'drop' when it throws up a contradiction in your own belief framework. I don't find that fair apologetics.

It simply means that in order for the society to survive, people are expected to obey rules governing that society.

This statement itself inherently assumes that society 'ought' to survive - and goes on to state that people 'ought' to obey rules governing that society. You don't seem to be doing away with the word choice yourself.

Again, let me state this very clearly - I don't mean to be difficult or irritating. If you don't like the word 'ought', call it by any other name and I'll follow that - but what I'm getting at is that the semantic meaning the word 'ought' holds isn't possible in a purely materialistic world. It is a glaring contradiction according to me. If you can resolve this substituting whatever other word you like - but holding the same meaning - I'd be fine with that. And the fixation is not on some word choice - it's pointing out a logical inconsistency which unfortunately goes by the term - "the is-ought problem". I hope you've understood my intent and position without ill-will.

 

[Deavonreye]

But that's what your belief system rests on - The implicit "oughts" that you take for granted and yet want to 'drop' when it throws up a contradiction in your own belief framework. I don't find that fair apologetics.


This statement itself inherently assumes that society 'ought' to survive - and goes on to state that people 'ought' to obey rules governing that society. You don't seem to be doing away with the word choice yourself.

Again, let me state this very clearly - I don't mean to be difficult or irritating. If you don't like the word 'ought', call it by any other name and I'll follow that - but what I'm getting at is that the semantic meaning the word 'ought' holds isn't possible in a purely materialistic world. It is a glaring contradiction according to me. If you can resolve this substituting whatever other word you like - but holding the same meaning - I'd be fine with that. And the fixation is not on some word choice - it's pointing out a logical inconsistency which unfortunately goes by the term - "the is-ought problem". I hope you've understood my intent and position without ill-will.

I'm afraid that we are talking past each other now. I really do not see the disconnect here. Maybe I need to step out of this part of the topic. I guess I'm just not seeing what your point is anymore. I just don't see the contradiction here. "Ought", "need to", whatever. Some people require laws to keep them in check. Some break them anyway. Others have the laws, . . . but wouldn't consider breaking them anyway. Why? Because the breaking of them would hurt another. I, for one, am the latter. I don't NEED a law telling me that I shouldn't do certain things.

But anyway, I don't think we are progressing here any.

 

[ivdavid]

I guess I'm just not seeing what your point is anymore. I just don't see the contradiction here.

Okay, I'll try illustrating it -

Imagine you're a scientist in a science laboratory. You are observing chemical reactions. Let's say in experiment A you observe the combination of 2 specific particles and in experiment B you observe the splitting of the 2 particles. Within that closed system, one wouldn't say any one experiment was better than the other or more beneficial than the other - since physical particles have no inherent purpose/goal/intent. They just do what their property is to do. In certain conditions, they split - in certain other conditions, they combine - that's just what they do. There is no inherent intent or freewill or decision-making in a particle. You cannot point to a combination reaction and preach to them telling them they ought not to combine - rather that they ought to split. It makes no sense there.
Would you agree so far?

Now scale this to the purely materialistic world that you propose - a world that is made up of only physical matter and no spiritual God, an eternal Mind beyond the physical. The universe then just is - the matter it's made up of just is - the particles of such matter have properties that just are. In different conditions, the particles combine/split/react according to their inherent properties. And that's all that can ever keep happening - in varying levels of complexity. Some very complex physical reactions, we label as life and sentience. We give names to different physical reactions - and label different properties. But that's all we can do. We cannot point to the property of gravity - and say you ought not to attract with so much gravitational force - that's what its property is in that given condition.

Now man in such a system is also only a part of such physical reactions. He just is. He has certain properties and in varying conditions will do certain things as is defined by his properties. Just as you cannot prescribe to a particle how it ought to behave, you cannot theoretically prescribe to man what he ought to do. As absurd as this sounds, this is the eventual implication of a purely materialistic world.

I know I have oversimplified this - but this is the substance of my conflict. If you have not understood any part in this, I'd be willing to clarify. And if you feel I am wrong in any of my assumptions, correct them - for I do acknowledge I may have misunderstood some of the claims of the naturalists.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Disagree.

"I do NOT know that "there is a god". I make this statement without any deceit, but is made with my utmost sincerety."

And yet You DO "Know that there's a God, and that he REQUIRES SOMETHING of you".

I'd Agree with:

"and definitely does not give you "no excuse" as to the necessary steps christianity requires for "salvation".

But that wasn't the question, of course. You KNOW that there is a God, and you want nothing to do with either HIM, or his requirements - even though you probably have no REAL idea what they would be.

But since Romans says that YOU KNOW there's a God, then if you say that you don't, then you are the one who's not speaking the truth.

Simple as that.

 

[Deavonreye]

Thank you for your analogy. Physics is as it does. Sometimes random, sometimes . . . just because that is what it does, and it is consistent [relatively]. But even in a purely materialistic world, though properties do exist, there are times when there is an emergence. Perhaps that is what makes social species what they are. Not that they make themselves behave as they do, but it has become a part of their being. It has become instinctual for the species to cooperate, . . . like a lion pride. They didn't all get together and decide how they will get their meal. Where man differs is that we have emerged from that [similar trait] to the point where we can direct our fate/future, . . . . some for the better, some for the worse.

I am going to call it a night. I took something to help me sleep, and I really need to go do that.

 

[ivdavid]

Physics is as it does.
But even in a purely materialistic world, though properties do exist, there are times when there is an emergence.

What is meant by this emergence? Is it an emergence that detaches itself from the physical? If so, then the world ceases to be purely materialistic which is your initial premise. If not, then this emergence is still physical and as you rightly concurred in your first statement above - physics is as it does - hence, this emergence too is as it does.

Where man differs is that we have emerged from that [similar trait] to the point where we can direct our fate/future

As far as I know, there has been no credible evidence to prove this. I may be wrong - so please tell me if there has been some evidence found in this regard.

Anyway, within a purely materialistic world, this is like saying that a part of complex physical matter has the property to 'choose' between 2 or more properties to exhibit. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Pardon my lack of scientific knowledge, but this is like saying Carbon has the "choice" to form either Carbon-monoxide or Carbon-dioxide with oxygen. But that's not logical nor scientific. What we rather say is that Carbon has the property to form Carbon-monoxide at higher temperature levels and that it has the property to form Carbon-dioxide at lower temperatures.

Similarly, within this materialistic world, we must say that man has the property to act this way under these conditions and has the property to act that way in those conditions - not that he has any choice on it even if he could be aware of the many possibilities. But this implication seems illogical, right? How do you work around this to still uphold a purely materialistic world?

And please reply at your convenience.

 

[Levi]

The rest of your post isn't relevant to the issue here. You stated that I am guilty of transgressing the law. By that, I was assuming that you were talking about biblical law. If not, please explain which law I have transgressed that is extra-biblical.

The law that rules your conscience, the one that makes your face burn when you think of the stupid things that you have done!

Or generates guilt that you must suppress when you know you have 'sinned'

No one can teach you that, it exists solely as evidence to be used in court!

You see the law is written in more than stone. It's engraved into your conscience.

And it testifies to your maker.

All men have conscience at some point in their lives.

Those that have 'seared' their consciences and no longer feel anything when they transgress are criminally insane.

 

[Deavonreye]

What is meant by this emergence? Is it an emergence that detaches itself from the physical? If so, then the world ceases to be purely materialistic which is your initial premise. If not, then this emergence is still physical and as you rightly concurred in your first statement above - physics is as it does - hence, this emergence too is as it does.

It is still the physical/material world. It is [for example] like AI. Artificial Intelligence. The ability to use existing material and form an action based upon it. Simple forms of matter don't have this ability. In short, carbon doesn't have a reasoning brain at its core. As magnitism only reacts, so does carbon, . . . and it is constrained by the physics it works in.

Similarly, within this materialistic world, we must say that man has the property to act this way under these conditions and has the property to act that way in those conditions - not that he has any choice on it even if he could be aware of the many possibilities. But this implication seems illogical, right? How do you work around this to still uphold a purely materialistic world?

And please reply at your convenience.

We all could be directed in some sort of Matrix.

I'm not a neuroscientist so I can't really discuss in further detail on how we evolved to the point we are and how our brains works. What is certain is that there isn't anything supernatural at work. Just the natural.

 

[Deavonreye]

The law that rules your conscience, the one that makes your face burn when you think of the stupid things that you have done!

Or generates guilt that you must suppress when you know you have 'sinned'

No one can teach you that, it exists solely as evidence to be used in court!

You see the law is written in more than stone. It's engraved into your conscience.

And it testifies to your maker.

All men have conscience at some point in their lives.

Those that have 'seared' their consciences and no longer feel anything when they transgress are criminally insane.

I see nothing of the sort "in me" that "testifies to a maker". This is just dogma based upon a religious belief. And tell me which one, and in which holy book, you get this idea from??? I doubt you can claim an extra-biblical source here. All you have done is offered opinion, if you are not including your biblical foundation.

But on the purely naturalistic level, men DO have the ability to know what is right, relative to the culture they live. However, in the United States, much of that culture WAS [and still is] highly affected by a religious undertone. And that religious undertone has been influenced by the religious text, the bible. So we're back to square one . . . . . and why I jumped to the conclusion that you are expecting people to follow biblical law.

Yes, there are certain aspects of humanity that we have been made to [probably written in our DNA, I don't know] see as "wrong". Let's take the traditionally held "10 commandments", for example. Let's see if these are "engraved on my conscience". And for "my conscience", I will qualify that with "that which I agree with".

10 - “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.â€

There is nothing immoral in wishing you had what your neighbor does. Only if you steal it. What it CAN do is motivate you to better yourself. Is that one "engraved in my conscience"? No.

As a side note, there is a part of that commandment that should make a person question. I'll let you figure out which part.

9 - “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

You shouldn't lie about people. "Engraved on my conscience"? Perhaps so.

8 - “You shall not steal." If it belongs to another person, you would violate their personal rights. "Engraved on my conscience"? I would say, yes.

7 - “You shall not commit adultery."

Having relations with someone who isn't your spouse can result in problems and inner pain. I can choose, whether "right or wrong", not to, for my own sake. "Engraved on my conscience"? Sure, but it is more about wronging another person [the spouse of the one you are having relations with].

6 - “You shall not murder."

Without a VERY good reason [war, person protection], murder is unethical. "Engraved on my conscience"? Yes, it is.

5 - “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land...".

Though honoring your parents has nothing to do with how long you live, it is a very good thing to do. . . . . unless the parents are abusive. So relatively, "Engraved on MY consience"? Because of who my parents are, . . . ABSOLUTELY.

4 - “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God."

I labor for 5 days. . . as does many. "Engraved on my conscience"? Hardly. Which ever day "the sabbath" is on, . . . it's just another day.

3 - “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

What "name" is that? I don't use any such terminology in my speech. "Engraved on my conscience"? Not at all.

2 - “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."

There is a lot in this one that could be touched on, but for another thread. "Engraved on my conscience?" Not at all.

1 - “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Firstly, . . . . I haven't ever been to Egypt. This thread is all about "evidence for this god mentioned in the christian bible". It is the crux of the issue. There is no more evidence for this god than any other god that has been worshipped by MANY cultures in the world. Until that can be established, . . . . is this one engraved on my conscience? Absolutely not.

 

[jasoncran]

wow if that matrix is the case its ok unless to the athiest its not the god that calvin describe that allows some men to enter to heaven and others to hell.

 

[ivdavid]

It is still the physical/material world. It is [for example] like AI. Artificial Intelligence.

There are several issues I have with your line of argument -

1. Firstly, I cannot accept the analogy of AI to model the complex life forms in this materialistic world. The AI model is programmed by an external mind(the human programmer) outside the AI system - but you deny any such external Mind w.r.t. our materialistic world.

2. Secondly, we started discussing if it's possible to derive a moral prescriptive 'ought' from a descriptive 'is'. And you claimed that it could be so. I countered that by showing that the physical just 'is' and cannot be anything more - that it behaves only according to its properties and does not give rise to the concept of 'choice' and 'decision/goal making' etc. And you cite AI as your counter-response? I hope you do realize that AI only simulates choice-selection and decision-making whereas actually it works according to its deterministic properties(programmed laws of code) with no scope for any secondary alternative/choice to be ever executed in a fixed scenario.

3. Thirdly, I was referring to the fact that mere physical matter does not have any choices on what property to exhibit - they simply exhibit whatever their property dictates under that condition. In this context, I referred to Carbon as the 'physical entity' and pointed out its lack of "choice" - rather only the existence of its properties. Since you're saying that man too is only "physical", I extrapolated the previous implications to man.

But you state that man is somehow different from carbon because he has a "reasoning brain". How does that solve the contradiction with your other premise that mere physical matter cannot theoretically have "direction of choice"? The 'reasoning brain' is physical too, right? So, it too must still have the qualities of the physical, right? And therefore, even the 'reasoning brain' can only behave according to its properties and nothing more. This is in direct contradiction with what we observe - how do you work around this?

I'm not a neuroscientist so I can't really discuss in further detail on how we evolved to the point we are and how our brains works.

Neither am I - and even if you explained it scientifically, chances are good that I wouldn't understand much. But I'm not asking you to explain how rationality and consciousness emerged from non-rational physical matter - I'm merely asking if there is a commonly proved scientific theory on this, that the scientific world holds to be true right now. I just wanted to know if such a proven theory exists out there and if so, just what its name is or who formulated it etc. - not its scientific explanation in detail.

 

[Levi]

I see nothing of the sort "in me" that "testifies to a maker". This is just dogma based upon a religious belief. And tell me which one, and in which holy book, you get this idea from??? I doubt you can claim an extra-biblical source here. All you have done is offered opinion, if you are not including your biblical foundation.

But on the purely naturalistic level, men DO have the ability to know what is right, relative to the culture they live. However, in the United States, much of that culture WAS [and still is] highly affected by a religious undertone. And that religious undertone has been influenced by the religious text, the bible. So we're back to square one . . . . . and why I jumped to the conclusion that you are expecting people to follow biblical law.

Yes, there are certain aspects of humanity that we have been made to [probably written in our DNA, I don't know] see as "wrong". Let's take the traditionally held "10 commandments", for example. Let's see if these are "engraved on my conscience". And for "my conscience", I will qualify that with "that which I agree with".

10 - “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

There is nothing immoral in wishing you had what your neighbor does. Only if you steal it. What it CAN do is motivate you to better yourself. Is that one "engraved in my conscience"? No.

As a side note, there is a part of that commandment that should make a person question. I'll let you figure out which part.

9 - “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

You shouldn't lie about people. "Engraved on my conscience"? Perhaps so.

8 - “You shall not steal." If it belongs to another person, you would violate their personal rights. "Engraved on my conscience"? I would say, yes.

7 - “You shall not commit adultery."

Having relations with someone who isn't your spouse can result in problems and inner pain. I can choose, whether "right or wrong", not to, for my own sake. "Engraved on my conscience"? Sure, but it is more about wronging another person [the spouse of the one you are having relations with].

6 - “You shall not murder."

Without a VERY good reason [war, person protection], murder is unethical. "Engraved on my conscience"? Yes, it is.

5 - “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land...".

Though honoring your parents has nothing to do with how long you live, it is a very good thing to do. . . . . unless the parents are abusive. So relatively, "Engraved on MY consience"? Because of who my parents are, . . . ABSOLUTELY.

4 - “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God."

I labor for 5 days. . . as does many. "Engraved on my conscience"? Hardly. Which ever day "the sabbath" is on, . . . it's just another day.

3 - “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

What "name" is that? I don't use any such terminology in my speech. "Engraved on my conscience"? Not at all.

2 - “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."

There is a lot in this one that could be touched on, but for another thread. "Engraved on my conscience?" Not at all.

1 - “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Firstly, . . . . I haven't ever been to Egypt. This thread is all about "evidence for this god mentioned in the christian bible". It is the crux of the issue. There is no more evidence for this god than any other god that has been worshipped by MANY cultures in the world. Until that can be established, . . . . is this one engraved on my conscience? Absolutely not.

Thats an awfully long post I will deal with this part as the rest is irrelevant because once again you launch into the Judaic laws (what is it with you and these laws, why do you keep reverting back to the Bible, I would love to know what it is about this book that you should continue to use it to try and justify your belief structure?):

I see nothing of the sort "in me" that "testifies to a maker". This is just dogma based upon a religious belief. And tell me which one, and in which holy book, you get this idea from??? I doubt you can claim an extra-biblical source here. All you have done is offered opinion, if you are not including your biblical foundation.

This is not opinion nor is it dogma and I have presented you with no such 'religious belief' to warrant such a claim, what I have presented to you is a fact.

It is the same basis on which you will be judged.

You have a law operating within you and your conscience is EVIDENCE of this

If you deny that you are either a bold face liar or criminally insane.

 

[Deavonreye]

Once again, I will say that much of what is being said isn't resolving anything on either side. What is being given as "evidence" and/or argument isn't what I see as the same. We are at an impass. The topic has gotten away from actual "evidence for god" and quite frankly, I'm not sure how to respond to these posts anymore. Having said that, this isn't me "running away from the issue". I just am unsure how to proceed further. I don't have any documentation/papers that I can show here.

My bottom line is, . . . social species act the way the do. It preserves the society. Man isn't the only social species. Some concepts transfer to others.

Thanks for the intersting topic.

 

[ivdavid]

What is being given as "evidence" and/or argument isn't what I see as the same.

I don't know if you really mean this or if this is just another way of saying you're no longer interested in the discussion. Because if it's the former, I'd strive to make anything you don't understand a bit simpler by giving analogies, illustrations etc. But if you're simply bored, then we could leave it where we left it, concur that no conclusion was reached and move on to something else that interests us. Nobody is expected to sit at a discussion forum to the end - hence no explanations are required.

So, could you tell me if I need to clarify something that you didn't understand - or do you want us to take a break? If something I've written is the issue, you could point out any irrelevant or unfair reasoning on my part - and I'll either clarify or retract. I don't think I have veered from the OP, and it's quite sad that you think so - perhaps, if you really want to know, I could clarify my line of argument again - but come to think of it, it has been quite a long discussion and a break is completely understandable.

I just am unsure how to proceed further. I don't have any documentation/papers that I can show here.

I really hope that this isn't the reason you're at an impasse. Because I didn't expect any documentation/papers from you - just a simple 'yes/no' answer of whether any credible evidence has been established to prove a theory for the emergence of rationality and consciousness from non-rational physical matter. A simple 'yes/no' would do. And obviously you would have come across that somewhere - and if and only if you remember, you could cite some references so I too could read up on it - but if not, that's fine. It's like me asking if man has landed on the moon - and a simple 'yes' would suffice. A reference to 1969 and Neil Armstrong would be extra information that would be great but which I don't necessarily expect.

Again, I've written all this under the assumption that you might still want to continue discussing here, if things were made clearer for you - if not, then ignore all this and we could call an end to this discussion at this point.