Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[Profound Realization]

That's not my argument. My argument is that spacetime is a property of energy, so that the existence of energy is the existence of time, not vice versa.
If you're happy that physics is theology and that the supernatural is wholly imaginary, why not?
Then those are all questions within physics.
Then we're now in the realm of psychology.
If by 'belief' you mean 'understanding', I can live with that.
No reason. Many people go through life without questioning the basics. No doubt this is what Plato's Socrates had in mind when he said, 'The unexamined life is not worth living'. For him this is true. For others it may not be.

Personally, the question What's true in reality? has always been a remarkably helpful starting point for just about anything.
Because they have a Large Hadron Collider and you don't?
One way, in my view the most reasonable way, is by making the best understanding of what we can perceive; because our best understanding for the time being is what truth is.

But as the natural world gets bigger and weirder, there's still no sign of gods or devils outside of imagination. That too has implications, no?

When all atoms/particles/virtual particles, whatever we wish to call them.... are completely broken down, all that may be left is "pure light" or "pure energy, "primordial light." To some, that is perceived as "God." To some, "first-born son" is an ancient term for "primordial sun/primordial energy." So who knows, perhaps all is intertwined with only semantics and definitions dividing the way. After all, how each individually perceives and defines things is already determined. No sense in reasoning or debating others. All would be true/right.

I am a "living" or "conscious/aware" particle collider, as are you . As some say, to know thyself. Perhaps ourselves contain an abundance of exotic matter/exotic energy/primordial matter/energy, primordial virtual particles CERN's hadron collider can only imagine and wish it can have within.

Touching base on psychology and "religion," many believe that all is "mind." For instance, for something to exist in someone's imagination, it has to exist in some form. Perhaps not in physical or seen form, but rather in virtual particle quantum form... photons containing that information of said belief for example. Or grey matter in the claustrom or hippocampi.. or biophotons...just examples. If they came from our external environment, they exist in some form. If they come from our inner environment, its irrelevant since our "brains" were formed from the external environment.
Strange, indeed... would be truly amazing how our "brains" create something that doesn't exist in certain forms yet do exist in another form. . all coming from our external environment. How physical chemicals could even allow something that doesn't exist physically is astounding.

Forgiveness should be automatic in our ways, for nobody is ever at fault. If someone murdered someone, it was determined and the murderer is not at fault. The moment any man holds that man accountable, they break the universal law of determinism. This should already be programmed into our genes, for anything else defies strict determinism. The natural genetic moral code embedded into us wouldn't and could not even be able to think about punishing someone for an act they are not responsible for. It would be an impossibility. If such were true. Ever consider "soft determinism?"

 

[Repox]

You claim this is somehow relevant to some point you haven't made yet. Experience of your incomprehension of your own chosen topic makes your claim ever suspect.
So what?
First, I said it was an hypothesis. Second, the spacetime of this universe didn't exist before this universe did. Therefore it's the product of the BB. Therefore it's the product of energy.

If not, don't forget to explain to me where spacetime came from.

Or don't you know?
There you go, talking about Freewill Definition 1 again. Irrelevant. *Sigh"

No, the BB is not a product of energy. There is no scientific evidence for such a weird idea. If you were familiar with science you would know scientists claim time began with the big bang. They are no other empirical references. Science refers to matter and energy as two entities of the universe, they don't claim energy preceded matter. I don't have to explain to you where the arrow of time originated, science has already done it. Do some homework.

You will never understand the big picture of the universe and earth unless you know about its purpose, which I have explained. Otherwise, you're lost in a dark tunnel with no exit. There are reasons for our universe and our condition as lost creatures of God, but you will never get it. Blind faith in determinism leads to an inability to see beyond the next predetermined path in the road.

 

[blü 2]

No, the BB is not a product of energy. There is no scientific evidence for such a weird idea.

Really? What do you say was packed into that exquisitely tiny space at unimaginable temperature? Be specific. Socks? Rocks? Chicken pox? What, exactly?

If you were familiar with science you would know scientists claim time began with the big bang.

Yes, more familiar with BB theory than you are ─ though that's a very low bar ─ and I'm aware of that.

They are no other empirical references. Science refers to matter and energy as two entities of the universe

So you don't realize that E=mc^2 expresses the equivalence of matter and energy? Then let me break it to you gently ... it does.

they don't claim energy preceded matter

You seriously think matter existed at time zero of the BB? There weren't even coherent subatomic particles at time zero.

I don't have to explain to you where the arrow of time originated, science has already done it.

Last time I looked, science had yet to explain the 'arrow of time'.

So since science doesn't know, I guess you'll have to tell me after all. How come there's an arrow of time?

You will never understand the big picture of the universe and earth unless you know about its purpose, which I have explained.

That the universe is a prison for Satan is raw dingbattery.

But you should have the chance to explain. Using only evidence acceptable to science, demonstrate that ─
(1) the universe has a purpose,
(2) a being called Satan exists, and how, and where, and what objective qualities Satan has,
(3) some being or beings exist who hold the opinion that Satan requires a prison, and how and where these being exist and on the basis of what evidence they hold that opinion,
(4) these beings built, or adapted, or decided to use, this universe as a prison for Satan.

When you've done that we can discuss it further. Until then, no more about it, please.

Blind faith in determinism leads to an inability to see beyond the next predetermined path in the road.

Determinism is the only reasonable conclusion from what we presently know. My understanding is solidly based in evidence.

And you, invited to describe alternatives, don't even understand the question, let alone describe alternatives.

 

[Repox]

Really? What do you say was packed into that exquisitely tiny space at unimaginable temperature? Be specific. Socks? Rocks? Chicken pox? What, exactly?
Yes, more familiar with BB theory than you are ─ though that's a very low bar ─ and I'm aware of that.
So you don't realize that E=mc^2 expresses the equivalence of matter and energy? Then let me break it to you gently ... it does.
You seriously think matter existed at time zero of the BB? There weren't even coherent subatomic particles at time zero.
Last time I looked, science had yet to explain the 'arrow of time'.

So since science doesn't know, I guess you'll have to tell me after all. How come there's an arrow of time?
That the universe is a prison for Satan is raw dingbattery.

But you should have the chance to explain. Using only evidence acceptable to science, demonstrate that ─
(1) the universe has a purpose,
(2) a being called Satan exists, and how, and where, and what objective qualities Satan has,
(3) some being or beings exist who hold the opinion that Satan requires a prison, and how and where these being exist and on the basis of what evidence they hold that opinion,
(4) these beings built, or adapted, or decided to use, this universe as a prison for Satan.

When you've done that we can discuss it further. Until then, no more about it, please.
Determinism is the only reasonable conclusion from what we presently know. My understanding is solidly based in evidence.

And you, invited to describe alternatives, don't even understand the question, let alone describe alternatives.

Your continual insults gain you nothing. I think one problem for you is I know more than you had thought, and you keep making fundamental science errors. Yes, I know about the theory of relativity, but I also know it doesn't explain the BB, it explains matter with respect to the speed of light. Both matter and energy came into existence following the hot explosion from the BB making an enormous burst of subatomic particles.

Because of your strong bias you cannot conceive of the real purpose of the universe. Therefore, you are frustrated, just as all other atheists for explaining what science cannot explain. Yes, Mr. Wizard of it all, there is a God, and there is an adversary of God. If you know about Satan you have an insight into the design of the universe. It was designed as a prison for Satan. Well, what is your explanation? What is the real purpose of the universe?

In previous postings, I have explained Satan's rebellion in heaven and subsequent imprisonment in the universe. I am not responsible for your failure to read, or ignore those postings. As for determinism, it exists in theory, but in reality there is no evidence. I have posted numerous examples of free will, and you continue to ignore the EVIDENCE.

 

[blü 2]

Both matter and energy came into existence following the hot explosion from the BB making an enormous burst of subatomic particles.

Pardon? Something other than energy constituted the big bang, you say? Energy only came into existence later, you say? At the same time as matter, you say?

So tell me, what constituted the big bang, since, you say, neither matter nor energy existed then? Be specific. Don't dodge the question.

Because of your strong bias you cannot conceive of the real purpose of the universe.

If you want to believe stories, that's fine. If you want me to believe them, you're going to have to indulge my bias for strong, clear, examinable evidence.

You have none.

Therefore, you are frustrated, just as all other atheists for explaining what science cannot explain.

Considering that you can't explain what science can't explain, your remark makes no sense.

there is a God

Then provide a satisfactory demonstration of [his] objective existence. If you can't, then you might ask yourself whether [he] exists outside of your imagination or not.

If you know about Satan you have an insight into the design of the universe. It was designed as a prison for Satan. Well, what is your explanation? What is the real purpose of the universe?

The universe has no purpose. Purposes didn't exist until life evolved to a stage where creatures could be said to have purposes. When there are no more creatures, there'll be no more purposes.

In previous postings, I have explained Satan's rebellion in heaven and subsequent imprisonment in the universe.

Not the slightest evidence suggests that it's an accurate statement about reality. It's just fantasy fiction.

As for determinism, it exists in theory, but in reality there is no evidence. I have posted numerous examples of free will, and you continue to ignore the EVIDENCE.

And I keep pointing out, and point out again, for the third or fourth time, that all your examples are examples of Definition 1, absence of external compulsion, and none is about Definition 2, the making of choices independently of cause&effect, which is the only relevant definition to a discussion of determinism.

 

[Repox]

Pardon? Something other than energy constituted the big bang, you say? Energy only came into existence later, you say? At the same time as matter, you say?

So tell me, what constituted the big bang, since, you say, neither matter nor energy existed then? Be specific. Don't dodge the question.
If you want to believe stories, that's fine. If you want me to believe them, you're going to have to indulge my bias for strong, clear, examinable evidence.

You have none.

Considering that you can't explain what science can't explain, your remark makes no sense.

Then provide a satisfactory demonstration of [his] objective existence. If you can't, then you might ask yourself whether [he] exists outside of your imagination or not.
The universe has no purpose. Purposes didn't exist until life evolved to a stage where creatures could be said to have purposes. When there are no more creatures, there'll be no more purposes.
Not the slightest evidence suggests that it's an accurate statement about reality. It's just fantasy fiction.
And I keep pointing out, and point out again, for the third or fourth time, that all your examples are examples of Definition 1, absence of external compulsion, and none is about Definition 2, the making of choices independently of cause&effect, which is the only relevant definition to a discussion of determinism.

I say, and science says. Read it.

The Big Bang Theory - Wikipedia

Ask a scientist, and he or she would tell you what I just posted about matter and energy. Where do you get your facts?

 

[blü 2]

I say, and science says. Read it.

The Big Bang Theory - Wikipedia

Ask a scientist, and he or she would tell you what I just posted about matter and energy. Where do you get your facts?

Your link doesn't agree with you, so forget that.

State what, specifically, banged when the BB banged. Not matter, you say. Not energy, you say.

What?

 

[Repox]

Your link doesn't agree with you, so forget that.

State what, specifically, banged when the BB banged. Not matter, you say. Not energy, you say.

What?

The reference agrees with my statement about matter and energy. Science can't explain what caused the big bang because scientists aren't in the religious business. God created the universe as prison for Satan. I know you don't like religion, but God is the only possible explanation.

This discussion is going nowhere. You don't seem to know much about the topic, just criticism.

 

[blü 2]

This discussion is going nowhere. You don't seem to know much about the topic, just criticism.

Then relieve me of my ignorance. Make me better informed.

Tell me what banged in the BB that wasn't matter and wasn't energy. (In your own words this time ─ as I've already told you, your linked article does NOT answer that question.)

Show me that God exists outside of imagination ─ give me a useful definition of a real god, so that we can tell it's God if we find it, and follow it with a satisfactory demonstration of one.

Do the same with Satan.

And explain how magic works. What exactly, step by step, was the process by which God caused the BB to happen?

I freely admit my own inability to answer any of these questions.

Do that with clearly reasoned evidence-backed unevasive answers with no links, and I'll gladly concede the debate to you. And thank you as well, since I'll have learnt something.

 

[Repox]

Then relieve me of my ignorance. Make me better informed.

Tell me what banged in the BB that wasn't matter and wasn't energy. (In your own words this time ─ as I've already told you, your linked article does NOT answer that question.)

Show me that God exists outside of imagination ─ give me a useful definition of a real god, so that we can tell it's God if we find it, and follow it with a satisfactory demonstration of one.

Do the same with Satan.

And explain how magic works. What exactly, step by step, was the process by which God caused the BB to happen?

I freely admit my own inability to answer any of these questions.

Do that with clearly reasoned evidence-backed unevasive answers with no links, and I'll gladly concede the debate to you. And thank you as well, since I'll have learnt something.

Definitely a smart aleck reply. It seems as if you are a dedicated atheist. If you were in the presence of God you would doubt it. Being a dedicated materialist, you would demand a blood specimen. Then, learning spiritual beings lack material substance, you would ignore the phenomenon.

You can end this discussion by putting me in my place. Present a natural science explanation for the BB. Assuming you can't do it, there is nothing further to discuss.

 

[blü 2]

Definitely a smart aleck reply.

Why?

They're all your claims.

All I want you to do is substantiate them, and win the debate and my approbation.

If you can't, just say so in as many words.

And you STILL haven't told me what banged in the BB. You've commented several times on how ignorant of science I am. Put me straight.

Or don't you know, and want to avoid admitting it?

It seems as if you are a dedicated atheist.

I'm not a dedicated atheist. Technically I'm not an atheist at all ─ I find the concept of a god with objective existence to be incoherent. Imaginary gods, no problem, of course.

I hold my materialist views because I've found no credible alternative. If I'm shown to be wrong, I'll review my position and keep trying to determine what's true in reality.

If you were in the presence of God you would doubt it. Being a dedicated materialist, you would demand a blood specimen. Then, learning spiritual beings lack material substance, you would ignore the phenomenon.

And why not? In the story, Doubting Thomas failed the skeptic test when, although offered the chance, he failed to place his hand in ─ make an objective assessment of ─ the wound. He just caved in to the psychological pressure of the moment.

If spiritual beings lack physical substance then the only place they exist is in the imagination of individuals.

If you say that's wrong, tell me the objective test that will distinguish a spiritual being from an imaginary one.

Present a natural science explanation for the BB. Assuming you can't do it, there is nothing further to discuss.

I can do no more than science can do: give you some evidence-based hypotheses. You know that or you wouldn't have asked.

And yet, since you say God did it, and you have not the tiniest clue what methods [he] used, you know enormously less than science does about the BB.

 

[Skwim]

.

C'mon Repox. You may be down, but you're not out. Show blü 2 what you've got.

Explain how your 'freewill' makes choices without using chains of cause & effect,

and knock him out.

.​

 

[Repox]

Why?

They're all your claims.

All I want you to do is substantiate them, and win the debate and my approbation.

If you can't, just say so in as many words.

And you STILL haven't told me what banged in the BB. You've commented several times on how ignorant of science I am. Put me straight.

Or don't you know, and want to avoid admitting it?
I'm not a dedicated atheist. Technically I'm not an atheist at all ─ I find the concept of a god with objective existence to be incoherent. Imaginary gods, no problem, of course.

I hold my materialist views because I've found no credible alternative. If I'm shown to be wrong, I'll review my position and keep trying to determine what's true in reality.
And why not? In the story, Doubting Thomas failed the skeptic test when, although offered the chance, he failed to place his hand in ─ make an objective assessment of ─ the wound. He just caved in to the psychological pressure of the moment.

If spiritual beings lack physical substance then the only place they exist is in the imagination of individuals.

If you say that's wrong, tell me the objective test that will distinguish a spiritual being from an imaginary one.
I can do no more than science can do: give you some evidence-based hypotheses. You know that or you wouldn't have asked.

And yet, since you say God did it, and you have not the tiniest clue what methods [he] used, you know enormously less than science does about the BB.

The Bible is evidence of God. Apparently, you reject it. Apparently, you are a dedicated materialist, so you can't conceive of a spiritual world. I have had revelations which have convinced me of God and the supernatural. However, I am reluctant to discuss them here, it would result in "there were only dreams," "you must be crazy," "only fools believe in dreams," and many more adverse remarks. In short, I am certain of what I know, and you are certain I know nothing because you are a dedicated materialist. If you read the Old Testament you would have a complete story of God's intervention in human affairs. If you don't believe those stories, what does it take to make you believe?

I am not a scientist but I have a formal education which includes a degree is science. I can read scientific reports with complete understanding, probably better than you. I have read the literature and have found science proposing theories about the BB, but all of them are without testable hypothesis or convincing arguments.

If you reject Bible stories about God, there is not much hope that you will ever believe in God. So, what is the use in discussing except for you to trip me up to look foolish?

We should go back to the original discussion about free will. There is no evidence people are programmed with brain cells to act in predictable ways. If there is, present it. Don't change the subject, present evidence for brain determinism.

 

[blü 2]

The Bible is evidence of God.

No, it's not. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking. You choose to believe it, perhaps through your indoctrination, but certainly not through evidence ─ if you had evidence this would be an entirely different conversation.

Apparently, you reject it.

I find it impossible to distinguish from other ancient tales of gods, tales that you don't believe either; so all you're attempting here is special pleading for your personal fave.

Apparently, you are a dedicated materialist, so you can't conceive of a spiritual world.

I can conceive of a spiritual world, and heaven, and fairyland, and The Shire, and the astral plane, and Hogwarts, as readily as anyone else. It's when you insist that your spirit world has objective existence that I say, Really? Show me. But you can't.

I have had revelations which have convinced me of God and the supernatural. However, I am reluctant to discuss them here, it would result in "there were only dreams," "you must be crazy," "only fools believe in dreams," and many more adverse remarks.

If it includes your Satan shtick, that indeed seems likely.

In short, I am certain of what I know

Interesting. I have higher and lower degrees of confidence in what I know about reality, but I don't pretend to be certain.

If you don't believe those stories, what does it take to make you believe?

A satisfactory definition of a real god. Followed by a satisfactory demonstration of one.

In short, good reason to think each story makes accurate statements about reality. Which in very many cases it surely doesn't.

I can read scientific reports with complete understanding, probably better than you.

We tested that assertion with your claim that no matter or energy was involved in the BB. I can't say your total failure to respond was good for your cred.

I have read the literature and have found science proposing theories about the BB, but all of them are without testable hypothesis or convincing arguments.

Then you must have slept through that science lesson. What about the prediction, by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948, that as a result of the BB the universe should be full of a faint microwave radiation of wavelength 1mm? In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered just that: a huge affirmation for the essentials of the theory.

If you reject Bible stories about God, there is not much hope that you will ever believe in God.

You say God has objective existence, but you can't show [him] to me. That makes no sense. Whereas if [he]'s imaginary it makes perfect sense.

We should go back to the original discussion about free will.

Yes.

Skwim and I are waiting in some excitement for you to tell us, step by step, how a brain makes a decision independently of cause&effect.

It's not a new question. I've asked you to do it from the very beginning but you keep talking about absence of external compulsion examples instead.

This time get it right.

Lay it on us!

 

[Repox]

Well, this has gone too far. Now, Mr. Wizard of All must confront hard facts about the Bible. He has stated Bible stories are a myth. Based on archeological evidence, those stories really happened. Here is one piece of evidence, I will post more.

The Walls of Jericho: A stratum of burnt matter relating to the City-IV destruction has been dated to 1617–1530 BC at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. It contains remains of The Walls of Jericho, which were destroyed either by an earthquake or a siege. Opinions are divided as to whether this destruction corresponds to that described in the Bible. According to the biblical account the Israelites destroyed the city after its walls fell down in around 1407 BC. Excavations led by John Garstang in 1930 dated the destruction of Jericho to 1400 BC, which would confirm the biblical story. However, the site was re-excavated by Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950s and the destruction of the walls was redated to around 1550 BC. Bryant G. Wood later reviewed Kenyon’s field notes and made a number of criticisms of her work. Wood found a number of ambiguities in the investigations and he also pointed to results of carbon 14 tests on a burnt stratum that dated the layer to 1410 BC, with a margin of error of 40 years. Wood’s conclusions therefore confirmed Garstang’s original estimates. However, the carbon dating result was a consequence of an incorrect calibration. In 1995 Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der Plicht used a high precision radiocarbon dating test on 18 samples from Jericho, including six samples of carbonized cereal from the burnt stratum. The results of these tests gave the age of the strata as 1562 BC, with a margin of error of 38 years. These results therefore confirm Kenyon's estimate and cast doubt on the biblical story.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology#Stages_in_the_development_of_biblical_archaeolog

 

[Repox]

Further verification of Old Testament stories.

The sound of unbridled joy seldom breaks the quiet of the British Museum's great Arched Room, which holds its collection of 130,000 Assyrian cuneiform tablets, dating back 5,000 years.

But Michael Jursa, a visiting professor from Vienna, let out such a cry last Thursday. He had made what has been called the most important find in Biblical archaeology for 100 years, a discovery that supports the view that the historical books of the Old Testament are based on fact.

Searching for Babylonian financial accounts among the tablets, Prof Jursa suddenly came across a name he half remembered - Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, described there in a hand 2,500 years old, as "the chief eunuch" of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon.

Prof Jursa, an Assyriologist, checked the Old Testament and there in chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, he found, spelled differently, the same name - Nebo-Sarsekim.

Related Articles

• Tomb of King Herod discovered in West Bank
  
  08 May 2007
• Night metal detectors 'looting Britain'
  
  08 Jul 2007
• Noah's Ark: facts behind the Flood
  
  19 Jan 2014
• Irving Finkel: reader of the lost Ark
  
  19 Jan 2014

Nebo-Sarsekim, according to Jeremiah, was Nebuchadnezzar II's "chief officer" and was with him at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, when the Babylonians overran the city.

The small tablet, the size of "a packet of 10 cigarettes" according to Irving Finkel, a British Museum expert, is a bill of receipt acknowledging Nabu-sharrussu-ukin's payment of 0.75 kg of gold to a temple in Babylon.

The tablet is dated to the 10th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, 595BC, 12 years before the siege of Jerusalem.

Evidence from non-Biblical sources of people named in the Bible is not unknown, but Nabu-sharrussu-ukin would have been a relatively insignificant figure.

"This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find," Dr Finkel said yesterday. "If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power."

Cuneiform is the oldest known form of writing and was commonly used in the Middle East between 3,200 BC and the second century AD. It was created by pressing a wedge-shaped instrument, usually a cut reed, into moist clay.

The full translation of the tablet reads: (Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

 

[blü 2]

Well, this has gone too far. Now, Mr. Wizard of All must confront hard facts about the Bible.

Red herring.

The topic is predestination.

So now talk Skwim and me through an example of a brain making decisions independently of cause&effect.

 

[Repox]

Red herring.

The topic is predestination.

So now talk Skwim and me through an example of a brain making decisions independently of cause&effect.

Our discussion is over. You have not been honest in your replies, it is one distortion after another. In short, our discussion is not beneficial for both of us.

 

[blü 2]

Our discussion is over. You have not been honest in your replies, it is one distortion after another. In short, our discussion is not beneficial for both of us.

I distorted nothing.

It seems reasonable to say, again without distortion, that you're simply ducking out because you can't provide the example asked of you. In other words, you have no more idea of how freewill might work independently of biochemical cause&effect than you do of the method God employed when he made the universe by magic.

I invite you to demonstrate that my remark is unfair, by talking us through the necessary example.

 

[Repox]

The primary argument for free will is theological. Briefly, if God created creatures to enjoy His love and to worship Him, and creatures have free will to accept or reject Him, then free will is essential. Otherwise, God created creatures to be robots; they obey and worship God without choices. It is also an important matter for Satan, God’s rebellious angel. If God created Satan to disobey Him, then there would be no such thing as evil. Throughout the Old Testament are many stories about the consequences of disobeying God. Therefore, we have an issue with regard to obedience to God in heaven, as well as here on earth.