A omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and human beings suffering

[Underground]

If God is alive then it follows that He didn't create life unless He created Himself. Same thing goes for conscious awareness and morality. If God has those features, then those are not created features.

God may have no morality.
If you believe he existed before creation, he used to be utterly alone somewhere in time, as existence had a beginning and he had not and morality needs more than one entity to exist.

Also if God always existed either existence has always been there, or is impossible for the existence to be, as existence has a beginning somewhere in time and infinite time is needed to get there. If time doesn't exist in the dimension of God, the statement that he existed before creation is meaningless.

Also, you're stating that logic can't be discussed and it is a limitation even for God. I must assume that conscious awareness is not, because it's one of its features. Therefore either his omnipotence allows him to be consciously aware or unconsciously aware, or a conscious awareness must be categorized as something that doesn't need God to exist together with logic.

Also, God is not alive. Life means imperfection, because it's constantly evolving, and God is perfect. Life means a birth somwhere in time. However, if life is a feature of God, either his omnipotence allows him to be alive and dead at the same time, or if he can't, life doesn't need God to exist as well.

We derive our sense of logic in part from our observations.

No. Our sense of logic has nothing to do with observations.
You don't need to be a nuclear engineer to know that a slow neutron is a slow neutron or that a slow neutron is not a fast neutron.
If something doesn't work in the statement above it is because either of wrong observation, or wrong nomenclature.

As I said before, I don't think God is omnipotent if one defines omnipotence only in the context of being able to change the laws of logic.

But this means that a God is not needed for something to exist, and you have neither reasons to discern what can exist indipendently from God, nor reasons to even consider God as an hypotesis, because a creator is needed no more.
If logic is the only thing that can exist without God or coexist with him, it must have something different from anything else, and you need to explain why logic is so different.

 

[Underground]

certain ideas we once considered "logical" were wrong

No, it just demonstrated that observations were wrong, or that there were no observation at all of a certain phenomenon because there were no instruments available yet. You can write down a completely wrong, profoundly logical scientific model if the observations are wrong.

 

[Underground]

I don't see how logic is a subset of life. Why must we assume that two plus two would equal four only if living things exist?

Logic needs objects to exist in a certain dimension. God is not omnipotent over Logic, therefore God is made at the image of logic, but Logic is a pure void with no contents if there is no existence before. So existence is needed to shape that Logic, that will then shape God who has no power over it.
Logic must be a certain kind of subset of existence, because existence can exist without logic, but logic has no meaning without existence.

 

[Penumbra]

God is omnipotent.
God is omnibenevolent.

Any argument to justify suffering is invalid. Any.

Why do you keep wasting your time with theisms? Can't you see the rubbish they're made of?

"God allows suffering to exist because we wouldn't know pleasure", but he is omnipotent. He could allow human beings to know pleasure without knowing suffering, or even to know suffering without knowing suffering, as God as no limitations, including logic. "God made us free to choose", but he is omnipotent. He could've created human beings free to chose that were not free to choose, as he is omnipotent. His omnipotence makes any reason to justify suffering utterly invalid.
"The real life is the life eternal life beyond death, what we do here doesn't matter at all, but this sounds cruel like someone having fun looking at his 3 years old kid having nightmares just because they are not real. And by the way, God could've made us having nightmares without having nightmares.

Also, suffering is not the existential phenomenon theists want you to believe.
Any powerful enough opium alkaloid, as long it's binding to opioid receptors, suppresses pain and psychological suffering completely.
Suffering -Don't pretend you know it's not true before you tried - is just some signaling in our brain. And yet theists have been wasting time, paper and ink writing tons and tons of useless theories about how suffering is God's compassion and legions of retarded masochists enjoyed suffering all their life.
A signaling in our brain! It wouldn't have been so difficult! Just a switch turned off!

I would be immensely glad to know what you think about this.

I don't identify as a theist, and certainly not a classical monotheist, but your argument is self-refuting.

If you make the argument that god is above logic, then you can't use logic to argue what a god would do or should do. Basically, you can't use logic to arrive at a conclusion for which logic doesn't even apply.

First of all, any sentence requires the use of basic logic to even be coherent. Particularly the laws of identity and non-contradiction. Without those, language itself is invalid. So if we get rid of logic, we can't even talk to each other. Second, if a god has no limitations, then all someone has to do in this thread is say that god could be omnibenevolent and omnimalevolent simultaneously and in the same way, and the thread's over. God could be omnibenevolent and yet cause infinite suffering. God could exist in all possible ways and not exist in all possible ways, at the same time. Thought and communication themselves no longer make sense, then.

Basically your argument requires several specific things to be true about the god in question for it to start being relevant but then refutes itself anyway once it says god is not limited by logic.

 

[Underground]

I don't identify as a theist, and certainly not a classical monotheist, but your argument is self-refuting.

If you make the argument that god is above logic, then you can't use logic to argue what a god would do or should do. Basically, you can't use logic to arrive at a conclusion for which logic doesn't even apply.

First of all, any sentence requires the use of basic logic to even be coherent. Particularly the laws of identity and non-contradiction. Without those, language itself is invalid. So if we get rid of logic, we can't even talk to each other. Second, if a god has no limitations, then all someone has to do in this thread is say that god could be omnibenevolent and omnimalevolent simultaneously and in the same way, and the thread's over. God could be omnibenevolent and yet cause infinite suffering. God could exist in all possible ways and not exist in all possible ways, at the same time. Thought and communication themselves no longer make sense, then.

Basically your argument requires several specific things to be true about the god in question for it to start being relevant but then refutes itself anyway once it says god is not limited by logic.

I don't have the wakefulness i need now, and i can't find coffee anywhere.
Most important contribution to the thread yet, deserves a night of deep sleep.
Thank you.

 

[Parsimony]

God may have no morality.
If you believe he existed before creation, he used to be utterly alone somewhere in time, as existence had a beginning and he had not and morality needs more than one entity to exist.

God would have begun to exist when time began to exist. Nothing can exist before the beginning of time. It's an oxymoron to say otherwise. If we are speaking of the Abrahamic God, then He does have morality.

Also if God always existed either existence has always been there, or is impossible for the existence to be, as existence has a beginning somewhere in time and infinite time is needed to get there. If time doesn't exist in the dimension of God, the statement that he existed before creation is meaningless.

See above.

Also, you're stating that logic can't be discussed and it is a limitation even for God. I must assume that conscious awareness is not, because it's one of its features. Therefore either his omnipotence allows him to be consciously aware or unconsciously aware, or a conscious awareness must be categorized as something that doesn't need God to exist together with logic.

I'd lean towards saying yes to that.

Also, God is not alive. Life means imperfection, because it's constantly evolving, and God is perfect. Life means a birth somwhere in time. However, if life is a feature of God, either his omnipotence allows him to be alive and dead at the same time, or if he can't, life doesn't need God to exist as well.

He wouldn't be alive in the same sense as a material life form is. In my opinion, anything that is consciously aware is alive, regardless of their other features. Plus, you're discussing logic-defying omnipotence again, which is not something I believe in.

No. Our sense of logic has nothing to do with observations.
You don't need to be a nuclear engineer to know that a slow neutron is a slow neutron or that a slow neutron is not a fast neutron.
If something doesn't work in the statement above it is because either of wrong observation, or wrong nomenclature.

I'm guessing that we are not using the same definition of logic here. I'd say that logic represents the set of rules that determines what can or cannot happen or what is true or false. Our sense of logic is simply our understanding of those rules, which can change over time. Our observations have played a role in shaping our view of what is logically possible. It would have been considered logically impossible for an object to exist in more than one place at a time in the past, but then quantum mechanics showed us that it is logically possible.

But this means that a God is not needed for something to exist, and you have neither reasons to discern what can exist indipendently from God, nor reasons to even consider God as an hypotesis, because a creator is needed no more.

Something can still exist even if it is not necessary.

If logic is the only thing that can exist without God or coexist with him, it must have something different from anything else, and you need to explain why logic is so different.

I say so because things don't make any sense if we assume that God was originally in an illogical state. He'd be in a state of chaos as there would be no differentiation between different numbers or ideas. You couldn't even count how many Gods existed because counting is based on mathematical logic.

No, it just demonstrated that observations were wrong, or that there were no observation at all of a certain phenomenon because there were no instruments available yet. You can write down a completely wrong, profoundly logical scientific model if the observations are wrong.

Not all of our observations affect our sense of logic, no. Some of them have just told us that some of the things that we thought were logical (or illogical) were not.

Logic needs objects to exist in a certain dimension. God is not omnipotent over Logic, therefore God is made at the image of logic, but Logic is a pure void with no contents if there is no existence before. So existence is needed to shape that Logic, that will then shape God who has no power over it.
Logic must be a certain kind of subset of existence, because existence can exist without logic, but logic has no meaning without existence.

I'm not so sure of that. You could not even determine if existence "exists" without some form of logic to deduce that with. Without logic, existence could both exist and not exist simultaneously.

 

[Underground]

God would have begun to exist when time began to exist. Nothing can exist before the beginning of time. It's an oxymoron to say otherwise. If we are speaking of the Abrahamic God, then He does have morality.

See above.

If God has begun to exist when time began to exist, then he must have been created.
If God and time began to exist at the same time, God is not needed for time to exist, neither he created time.

I'd lean towards saying yes to that.

But if a conscious awareness doesn't need God to exist, from your point of view you could say that you don't need God to exist. All you can be sure to be is your conscious awareness.

He wouldn't be alive in the same sense as a material life form is. In my opinion, anything that is consciously aware is alive, regardless of their other features. Plus, you're discussing logic-defying omnipotence again, which is not something I believe in.

Language has its limitations. From now on alive means aware, no problems about it. But, if God is logic-defying all the theology of this world is utterly useless, and you can't believe in God because believing in something means you know the object or the concept you believe, and believing in God wouldn't even be possible, and if he's not logic-defying he is not needed for things to exist and he's just a simple, not necessary demiurge.

I'm guessing that we are not using the same definition of logic here. I'd say that logic represents the set of rules that determines what can or cannot happen or what is true or false. Our sense of logic is simply our understanding of those rules, which can change over time. Our observations have played a role in shaping our view of what is logically possible. It would have been considered logically impossible for an object to exist in more than one place at a time in the past, but then quantum mechanics showed us that it is logically possible.

Again, those are the limitations of language. But, if God can't defy your meaning of logic, how are miracles possible.

Something can still exist even if it is not necessary.

This means, God could disappear and his existence may be accidental.

I say so because things don't make any sense if we assume that God was originally in an illogical state. He'd be in a state of chaos as there would be no differentiation between different numbers or ideas. You couldn't even count how many Gods existed because counting is based on mathematical logic.

Nothing makes any sense if you're talking about God.

Not all of our observations affect our sense of logic, no. Some of them have just told us that some of the things that we thought were logical (or illogical) were not.

Use the words intuitive and counterintuitive here.

I'm not so sure of that. You could not even determine if existence "exists" without some form of logic to deduce that with. Without logic, existence could both exist and not exist simultaneously.

But you can't shape existence out of Logic if before that existence that Logic is a void with no contents. And if Logic and existence are two point of views for the same thing, God is not needed for existence to exist.

 

[Underground]

...

Are theologies of an omnipotent God useful then?

You can look at it with this point of view: a purpose of those discourses could be sending your mind into such a irreversible, painful overdrive that there is no way out but a profound dissociation disorder.

 

[Parsimony]

If God has begun to exist when time began to exist, then he must have been created.
If God and time began to exist at the same time, God is not needed for time to exist, neither he created time.

I don't see how that follows.

But if a conscious awareness doesn't need God to exist, from your point of view you could say that you don't need God to exist. All you can be sure to be is your conscious awareness.

Possibly so, yes.

Language has its limitations. From now on alive means aware, no problems about it. But, if God is logic-defying all the theology of this world is utterly useless, and you can't believe in God because believing in something means you know the object or the concept you believe, and believing in God wouldn't even be possible, and if he's not logic-defying he is not needed for things to exist and he's just a simple, not necessary demiurge.

Perhaps He is not necessary.

Again, those are the limitations of language. But, if God can't defy your meaning of logic, how are miracles possible.

Miracles don't have to entail a breaking of fundamental logic. Postponing or changing the laws of physics is not necessarily the same as creating logical contradictions.

This means, God could disappear and his existence may be accidental.

I don't know about Him disappearing, but it does seem that His existence may be incidental if He does exist. I haven't yet found any convincing arguments for why He exists.

Nothing makes any sense if you're talking about God.

Did you expect for there to be sense in this thread, then?

Use the words intuitive and counterintuitive here.

If that's what you want.

But you can't shape existence out of Logic if before that existence that Logic is a void with no contents. And if Logic and existence are two point of views for the same thing, God is not needed for existence to exist.

Right. If God exists, then He didn't create existence unless He somehow created Himself.

 

[Underground]

I don't see how that follows.

God can't be the same thing as time because time is distorted by gravitation and in some regions of the universe it may not even exist, and if they appeared together, time is indipendent from God, so he wasn't needed to create time.

Possibly so, yes.

GOD IS DEAD!!! MAN IS FREE!!!

Perhaps He is not necessary.

I don't know about Him disappearing, but it does seem that His existence may be incidental if He does exist. I haven't yet found any convincing arguments for why He exists.

Then why would you care for a non necessary, perhaps incidental entity that perhaps has no meaning?

Miracles don't have to entail a breaking of fundamental logic. Postponing or changing the laws of physics is not necessarily the same as creating logical contradictions.

Having power on the laws of physics is enough to end suffering on this world even without omnipotence. Saturated mu/delta opioid receptors 24/7.

Did you expect for there to be sense in this thread, then?

The sense of this thread is that God has no sense.

If that's what you want.

Language is a perfectible mean of communication. Help him.

Right. If God exists, then He didn't create existence unless He somehow created Himself.

God doesn't create himself. If he can create himself he's already there.

 

[Parsimony]

God can't be the same thing as time because time is distorted by gravitation and in some regions of the universe it may not even exist, and if they appeared together, time is indipendent from God, so he wasn't needed to create time.

Nor do I think He is the same thing as time.

GOD IS DEAD!!! MAN IS FREE!!!

If He was ever alive, I don't think He's dead now.

Then why would you care for a non necessary, perhaps incidental entity that perhaps has no meaning?

I'm not even sure that God exists. I'm mostly just intended on playing Devil's advocate in regards to whether the Abrahamic God can break the laws of logic or not.

Having power on the laws of physics is enough to end suffering on this world even without omnipotence. Saturated mu/delta opioid receptors 24/7.

Right, He could.

The sense of this thread is that God has no sense.

He has no sense or the concept makes no sense?

Language is a perfectible mean of communication. Help him.

Help who?

God doesn't create himself. If he can create himself he's already there.

Nor do I believe that He created Himself.

 

[Underground]

Nor do I think He is the same thing as time.

So, God isn't needed for time to exist?

If He was ever alive, I don't think He's dead now.

The only reason because God is not dead now is that he doesn't exist.

I'm not even sure that God exists. I'm mostly just intended on playing Devil's advocate in regards to whether the Abrahamic God can break the laws of logic or not.

So, what reasons do you have not to be sure he doesn't exist?
What reasons do you have to consider the Abrahamic God as they describe him logically coherent?

Right, He could.

He is omnibenevolent. There's no reason for him not to do it.

He has no sense or the concept makes no sense?

Concept.

Help who?

Language, humanized.

Nor do I believe that He created Himself.

So God is not needed for existence to exist.

 

[TashaN]

**MOD POST**

Thread has been moved to Religious Debates​

 

[Katzpur]

God is omnibenevolent.

Says who?

 

[Parsimony]

So, God isn't needed for time to exist?

Dunno. Maybe, maybe not.

The only reason because God is not dead now is that he doesn't exist.

If you say so.

So, what reasons do you have not to be sure he doesn't exist?
What reasons do you have to consider the Abrahamic God as they describe him logically coherent?

You generally cannot be sure of the non-existence of an intangible being. My current, tentative reason for continuing to think that Christianity may have something more to it has to deal with Christian exorcisms.

He is omnibenevolent. There's no reason for him not to do it.

At least not so far as you can see.

Concept.

Okay.

Language, humanized.

Um, okay...

So God is not needed for existence to exist.

Obviously.

 

[Levite]

God is omnipotent.
God is omnibenevolent.

Any argument to justify suffering is invalid. Any.

Why do you keep wasting your time with theisms? Can't you see the rubbish they're made of?

"God allows suffering to exist because we wouldn't know pleasure", but he is omnipotent. He could allow human beings to know pleasure without knowing suffering, or even to know suffering without knowing suffering, as God as no limitations, including logic. "God made us free to choose", but he is omnipotent. He could've created human beings free to chose that were not free to choose, as he is omnipotent. His omnipotence makes any reason to justify suffering utterly invalid.
"The real life is the life eternal life beyond death, what we do here doesn't matter at all, but this sounds cruel like someone having fun looking at his 3 years old kid having nightmares just because they are not real. And by the way, God could've made us having nightmares without having nightmares.

Also, suffering is not the existential phenomenon theists want you to believe.
Any powerful enough opium alkaloid, as long it's binding to opioid receptors, suppresses pain and psychological suffering completely.
Suffering -Don't pretend you know it's not true before you tried - is just some signaling in our brain. And yet theists have been wasting time, paper and ink writing tons and tons of useless theories about how suffering is God's compassion and legions of retarded masochists enjoyed suffering all their life.
A signaling in our brain! It wouldn't have been so difficult! Just a switch turned off!

I would be immensely glad to know what you think about this.

I actually agree that God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. The two are mutually incompatible. And I have never understood why so many seem bent on trying to have both.

For me, it seems manifest that God is not omnibenevolent: if He were, there would be no pain, no suffering, no evil-- because the universe that we live in could not exist. A truly omnibenevolent being would be unwilling to create a universe in which it was inevitable that beings would suffer anything at all-- even bruised knees or the pain of loss or even hurt feelings. If such a God created a universe at all, it would be an inconceivably different universe-- the cosmological and metaphysical equivalent of a padded room, with beings probably incapable of either emotion or free will. But that is not the universe we have. This universe of uncertainty, doubt, fear, pain, death (but also surprise, exultation, joy, pleasure, life) is testament to God not being omnibenevolent.

I believe God is omnipotent. I believe that God is basically good, and cares about us. But I also believe that God can be a little ruthless in the short term, and sometimes is willing to sacrifice the happiness or wellbeing of individuals in order for the long-term big-picture goals of His creation to be met-- whatever those may end up being.

And to me, this makes sense, because some hint of it has always been in our tradition. Jews have always been crystal clear that there is just one God, solely responsible for the creation of everything. If that is so, it must include the bad things as well as the good. Indeed, Isaiah 45:7 says "I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil: I YHVH do all these things."

To my mind, the knowledge that God is not omnibenevolent, yet the belief that He is omnipotent is precisely the tension that demands faith of us. If we are not to reject God altogether, we must choose to believe that-- even though we cannot necessarily see or understand them-- there must be reasons that God has why He chose to create this universe as it is, why He chose to create us as we are with free will, despite knowing what would inevitably come of both.

I choose to believe that He does have reasons, and that whatever they are, those reasons are good: that there is meaning even in what to us appears meaningless, that there is an echo of order even in what to us appears chaos, and that when God chooses not to reveal Himself or not to help us or otherwise not to noticeably intervene in the regular functioning of the universe and the free will of humankind, there is a purpose being served.

However, I must point out that what you say of suffering above is erroneous and misleading. Drugs and other such things do not take away suffering. They merely suppress our most acute perceptions of it-- and that is especially true for psychological suffering.

 

[s2a]

God is omnipotent.
God is omnibenevolent.

Any argument to justify suffering is invalid. Any.

OK.

Why do you keep wasting your time with theisms? Can't you see the rubbish they're made of?

Is "we" meant to be all-inclusive, or just another sweeping generalization?

"God allows suffering to exist because we wouldn't know pleasure"

, but he is omnipotent. He could allow human beings to know pleasure without knowing suffering, or even to know suffering without knowing suffering, as God as no limitations, including logic. "God made us free to choose", but he is omnipotent. He could've created human beings free to chose that were not free to choose, as he is omnipotent. His omnipotence makes any reason to justify suffering utterly invalid.
"The real life is the life eternal life beyond death, what we do here doesn't matter at all, but this sounds cruel like someone having fun looking at his 3 years old kid having nightmares just because they are not real. And by the way, God could've made us having nightmares without having nightmares.

Yep.

Your point is...?

Also, suffering is not the existential phenomenon theists want you to believe.
Any powerful enough opium alkaloid, as long it's binding to opioid receptors, suppresses pain and psychological suffering completely.
Suffering -Don't pretend you know it's not true before you tried - is just some signaling in our brain. And yet theists have been wasting time, paper and ink writing tons and tons of useless theories about how suffering is God's compassion and legions of retarded masochists enjoyed suffering all their life.
A signaling in our brain! It wouldn't have been so difficult! Just a switch turned off!

Yep.

Good luck with that message here.

I would be immensely glad to know what you think about this.

You're hardly the first, and most certainly not the last to point out the illogical fantasies that must be accepted and applied to any "faith-based" rationale of existence, but at least you get a pass into the "Skeptic's House of Meaner Realities".

 

[Underground]

Says who?

A God that is nothing but love must be forced into a bathroom and then used as toilet paper, and that too would be out of compassion.
Known the taste of love, which you have not yet, the idea of a God that is nothing but love disappears, and it is not possible for it to come back.

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
John 4:8

 

[Underground]

I believe God is omnipotent.

Is logic a limitation for him?
Does God need to obey the laws of logic?

I believe that God is basically good, and cares about us.

God is perfect, therefore that would mean that being basically good is perfection.
If your son or daughter end up in hell you shouldn't love them no more and feel no compassion, because you wouldn't be as perfect as God.
That you don't do because when the real world sets it God disappears.
The main rule of the demential game of God is that you need your logic to play it.
As your logic collapses God is nowhere to be found. God is such a superficial phenomenon.

But I also believe that God can be a little ruthless in the short term

What a beggar.

and sometimes is willing to sacrifice the happiness or wellbeing of individuals in order for the long-term big-picture goals of His creation to be met-- whatever those may end up being.

God is perfect and complete, therefore he has no desires.
There can't be no long-term goal.
There can't be no evolution in a perfect creation, just a mere, useless rearrangement of things from perfection to perfection.
Each act of God is utterly useless.

And to me, this makes sense, because some hint of it has always been in our tradition. Jews have always been crystal clear that there is just one God, solely responsible for the creation of everything. If that is so, it must include the bad things as well as the good. Indeed, Isaiah 45:7 says "I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil: I YHVH do all these things."

If God is perfect, evil is perfect, because God created it.
There's no reason for him to be angry if some human being is involved in a perfect phenomenon he has created.

To my mind, the knowledge that God is not omnibenevolent, yet the belief that He is omnipotent is precisely the tension that demands faith of us. If we are not to reject God altogether, we must choose to believe that-- even though we cannot necessarily see or understand them-- there must be reasons that God has why He chose to create this universe as it is, why He chose to create us as we are with free will, despite knowing what would inevitably come of both.

That is sheer slavery and humiliating, and not compatible with free will.
There can't be freedom with tension, it is not freedom at all.

I choose to believe that He does have reasons, and that whatever they are, those reasons are good: that there is meaning even in what to us appears meaningless, that there is an echo of order even in what to us appears chaos, and that when God chooses not to reveal Himself or not to help us or otherwise not to noticeably intervene in the regular functioning of the universe and the free will of humankind, there is a purpose being served.

God has no purposes. A perfect being can't have any purpose.
The source from where these echoes reverberates is you, not God.

However, I must point out that what you say of suffering above is erroneous and misleading. Drugs and other such things do not take away suffering. They merely suppress our most acute perceptions of it-- and that is especially true for psychological suffering.

Not erroneous at all. Each powerful enough δ, μ opioid receptor agonist utterly suppresses the phenomenon of suffering, and that is especially true for psychological suffering. What you said you just heard somewhere and repeated here, and until you smoke opium your ideas on opium doesn't have any value.
The real disaster here is that even pleasure is some dopamine neurosignaling, just like pain, and nothing more, but you feel this is a profound truth. Pain is real and can't be illusory, pleasure is illusory and can't be real. And both are made of the same stuff. A disaster.

 

[Katzpur]

A God that is nothing but love must be forced into a bathroom and then used as toilet paper, and that too would be out of compassion.
Known the taste of love, which you have not yet, the idea of a God that is nothing but love disappears, and it is not possible for it to come back.

You obviously don't know anywhere near as much about me as you think you do.

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
John 4:8

Nice scripture, but you didn't answer my question. Don't bother, though. There's another thread that's been going since December, 2012 on this same subject, and it's been going around in circles since it was started (4600 posts so far and still going strong) -- just the way this one is going to do. And with that, I'll see you around.