I don't acknowledge even the concept of God, much less the existence.

[eomer]

I'm referring to the idea of a God-being, not the more ambiguous use of the word to mean that-which-we-don't-understand.

I don't understand the meaning of a being that is supernatural. And if a being isn't supernatural then it isn't God.

So tell me, what does it mean to say there is a being that is supernatural? Why would any being that exists not be natural? What would be the characteristics that distinguish supernatural beings from natural beings? How and why would any being be God?

[okasha]

1. Define "supernatural."

n/t

[eomer]

3. Yes, thank you. I don't know a coherent meaning of that term either.

Without any coherent concept of supernatural, how and why would anything be God?

[okasha]

12. Without a coherent definition

of the term, how do you know whether you believe in a supernatural phenomenon or not? How do you determine what is or is not supernatural?

[Kablooie]

7. Outside of the known laws of the universe.

Things in the past that were mysterious were often considered supernatural.
Once we learned the mechanism that caused the event it wasn't supernatural any more.

By this definition God could be an entity that influences our existence but is beyond our current capability to detect scientifically.

Since we have no means of directly detecting it, god is just a fanciful concept like fairies or Republicanism.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. qualities not constrained by the physics of our universe.

for example: omnipresence.

[rrneck]

2. A supernatural being exists outside the natural laws of the universe. nt

[eomer]

4. What does that mean?

What characteristics would constitute existence outside the natural laws? Why wouldn't the natural laws need to include the existence of such a being?

[rrneck]

5. Because we made it up. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

10. it is a conceptual quality.

I can imagine a supernatural quality that is outside of the physics of our universe, that does not imply that this supernatural quality must exist. Any of the "omnis" are examples. omnipotence, for example, easy to imagine (although it has self contradictory aspects), yet impossible in the natural universe. Even more mundane stuff, ghosts, for example, or zombies, or vampires, cannot exist in our universe but are easy to conjure up in our minds.

But isn't it clear that "the supernatural" is in fact only conceptual? We created gods. There is good evidence that doing so served a useful evolutionary purpose. Unfortunately our transcendence of our need for religion, a process that restarted in the modern era with the enlightenment, is taking a very long time, and may fail again, as it did with the collapse of its predecessor in the ancient greco-roman civilization.

[cbayer]

6. If you don't even acknowledge the concept, how could you even

entertain any answers that would explain how others define it?

I don't define a god, but I would take supernatural to mean exactly that - something that can't be defined using the concepts that we are familiar with. Supernatural doesn't mean unnatural or not natural, imo.

How do you define supernatural?

[rug]

8. The notion of the supernatural rests on the premise of creation, specifically, creatio ex nihilo.

That is, all matter and energy did not always exist, that at one point it did not, and at another it did. To steal Sartre's phrase, being and nothingness.

If one believes matter and energy always existed, that person holds a natural view of everything.

If one believes it did not, that person holds a supernatural view of everything.

If one believes matter and energy did not always exist but came into being by an unknown process, then that person also holds a natural view of everything. The question is simply to learn that unknown, but nonetheless natural, process.

For a person who holds the supernatural view, the creation of matter and energy, i.e., nature, is not a natural process but an act of will by someone or something that exists outside of nature, the created thing.

Since natural processes are inanimate and do not have a will, that something is a someone, the Creator who created nature. Aka, God.

I don't think Aquinas is your cup of tea but he alludes to it in Questions 44 through 47.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/

[Warren Stupidity]

11. um no that isn't accurate.

If one believes matter and energy always existed, that person holds a natural view of everything.

If one believes it did not, that person holds a supernatural view of everything.

Modern physics is fine with matter and energy not having always existed.

[rug]

13. Keep reading.

If one believes matter and energy did not always exist but came into being by an unknown process, then that person also holds a natural view of everything. The question is simply to learn that unknown, but nonetheless natural, process.

[LostOne4Ever]

14. Huh?

Wouldn't energy not always having existed be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics?

[Warren Stupidity]

21. 1st law of thermodynamics only applies to an existent universe.

prior to that, there are no "laws". As a wise man observed: "nothing is unstable".

[eomer]

22. Thanks to you and others for the thoughtful responses.

I'm slow responding because thoughtful responses make me stop and think for a while, which is a good thing.

The current result of my thinking: to me the bottom line is that the concepts of God and the supernatural are a response to things that are beyond our understanding, at least currently, possibly always. They are an attempt at a solution to a problem that we find quite difficult, beyond us in fact. But in my opinion they are a cop out - just because we can't understand something is not a good enough reason to throw our hands up and conclude magic. Our explanations are crippled by our feeble abilities at conceiving the possibilities. So we talk about something being created from nothing when we have no reasonable understanding that would warrant such a solution. There being nothing at some point in time, or there being some beginning of time, are both concepts that we describe with words without having any idea what or how such a thing would be. So in other words, I remain unmoved by these tempting morsels - I still don't see a good reason to think anything other than that everything that is and ever has been is natural and is the result of natural processes. The fact that we don't understand is to me just an indication of how feeble our understanding is, not a good excuse for concluding that magic occurred.

[edhopper]

23. Yes

but you can't disprove it was God, or so I've been told.

[eomer]

25. True, we can never disprove magic. We can assume it away, however.

A basic assumption of science is that magic does not occur. So for me there's no call for abandoning that assumption when the going gets rough. In my opinion we should retain it when thinking about the beginnings (if any) of the universe and the beginning (if any) of time.

There was a time when evolution as an explanation for the beginning of our species was beyond anyone's understanding and so they assumed magic. When greater understanding was achieved it was clear that an assumption of science rather than magic would have been the correct course.

[rug]

27. That is certainly a prime contender and can explain a lot of it.

But there is also a genuine and coherent alternative, also within the limits of our understanding,

[eomer]

29. That's the part I still don't get.

I don't see how it is a coherent alternative that is within the limits of our understanding. It appeals to magic, I don't see how that's within our understanding.

[rug]

47. I could have been clearer.

I didn't intend to imply that a supernatural (or natural, for that matter) explanation is within our understanding, but rather that it limited by our understanding.

Regarding magic, I've always understood it to be an attempt to manipulate nature by unnatural means such as wands, incantations or entrails. It is an attempt to control by will and action using un- or super- natural methods.

Religion, on the other hand, is an attempt to know the unknowable, to discern a divine or supernatural will rather than to use the supernatural to impose one's own will.

Certainly it's easy to conflate the two, and charlatans make it easier, but I find the distinction useful and clarifying when I'm trying to figure out apparently religious behavior, be it malign, benign or simply bizarre.

[eomer]

48. Yes, I see your point but I think we're looking at two different aspects.

I mean magic as performed by some entity that might be called God, not magic performed by an ordinary person.

So I wasn't conflating an attempt to control by supernatural methods with an attempt to discern the supernatural. I definitely meant the former but was talking about such an attempt by a supernatural being, not by us mere mortals. So, in other words, we might say that God is an entity that can perform magic, not merely attempt it.

But what it means to perform magic is still in need of definition - how would we ever conclude that the ability to get something done doesn't have some explanation in the laws of nature just like any other effect? If an entity can will something to happen then there must be some mechanism, even if we don't understand it, by which will can interact with things and effect some change on them. This might be no more unknown than the mechanism by which gravity works. So the ability to effect changes on things by the will of some entity has no more need of being called supernatural than gravity does.

[cbayer]

31. I think the fault in this argument is that you reduce the concept of god to something

simplistic like "magic".

When you do that, you miss all the complexity that surrounds human attempts to make sense out of things that are beyond our understanding.

I think most people who believe in god have a very complex and nuanced idea of what that means. Of course there are those that don't, but I think for most it is very individualistic.

Your being "unmoved by these tempting morsels" is fine. You have other ways of making sense of that which is beyond our current understanding.

And your position is valid and works for you.

[eomer]

32. I'm not sure that is being simplistic - I think it is just noticing an overarching quality.

I do get what you mean that there is complexity in some people's explanations. But if every aspect of the more complex explanation is magical then the whole explanation is still just magic. The magic in Harry Potter is at times complex; it is still just magic.

But maybe you have some particular complexity that seems not magical; I'd be interested in that if you do.

[cbayer]

33. You experience it as "magic", something that can be relatively easily dismissed.

What is the overarching quality that you think magic covers?

As you said in another post, we know magic is fake. If you apply that as an overarching concept to religion, than you can logically conclude that all religion is fake.

That suits you and answers the question for you, but it is a patently false position for others who don't experience it as fake at all.

Religion is not Harry Potter, on that I think we can agree. But if one wishes to reduce it to that, then it does indeed make the whole complex soup of religion into a much simpler chicken broth.

I am best described as an apatheist. I don't know if there is a god and I don't really care either way.

So you might be better served by asking others who actually have developed unique ideas about what god is what they think….

if you really are interested.

[eomer]

34. The overarching quality is the concept of being supernatural.

Magic, as I'm using it, is just another word for supernatural.

And it isn't something that I can "experience" at all, much less experience differently than someone else. It is not possible for any person to ever discern that some observation has a supernatural cause. So to frame it as something that some people experience as false and others experience as true is nonsensical - no one does or can experience it at all. We can imagine it different ways but not experience it.

It also can't be false for some people and true for others, aside from our inability to experience it. It is either true universally that there can be something supernatural or else not true universally. Some people may believe it and others not but this has no effect on whether it is true or false.

But the issue for me remains that I have not heard a coherent explanation of what it would mean for something to be supernatural. The definition of nature, in this context, is everything that exists. The laws of nature are our attempt to discern how and why all things in nature work the way they do. Just because some things and the way those things work are beyond our understanding is not a good reason for claiming that they are outside of nature and don't have to follow any laws, not a good excuse for concluding that they can work by magic. The basic premise of Science, that all phenomenon that we can observe have causes that follow laws that we can attempt to explain, should not be abandoned at the fringes of our understanding - that is precisely where we should even more stubbornly endeavor to find scientific explanations.

And obviously I'm interested in and have asked what others think God is - that's what this OP is doing.

[cbayer]

35. Well, I guess if you equate supernatural with magic…..

But I don't think they are the same thing at all. There may or may not be supernatural events, I don't know. But "magic" is a sham, that I do know.

Some people will believe in the supernatural and some may not. Some may believe in a deity, some will not. Bottom line, nobody knows. Nobody. Your not believing does not make it not so.

Our knowledge of what is and what is not in this infinite universe is miniscule. Your experience is so very, very small in the big picture. If you define nature as everything that exists, you must realize that you know very little of nature and the "laws" regarding it. Something being "supernatural", or not able to be explained by the paltry knowledge we have, does not mean it does not exist. That's as silly as when people said the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth.

"Magic" is dismissive. Supernatural is encompassing and open. It speaks to our lack of knowledge.

[eomer]

36. When people say "magic" in this context, they mean the same thing as supernatural.

And my issue, as I've explained, isn't about whether I believe in the supernatural. It's that I don't understand any definition of it that makes enough sense to believe or not believe that it exists. I first have to have some idea what is meant, and then I can think about whether it exists.

So, again, what would make something that exists supernatural? What exactly would be different about it from the other things that exists? And what would make an event supernatural? Why wouldn't the mechanism by which it is effected, whatever it may be, be part of the laws of nature?

These questions are quite different than any estimation of how much we don't know.

[cbayer]

37. No they don't'. I've just told you that I don't,

so I don't know how you can draw the conclusion about "people" in general.

You have defined supernatural for yourself. You define it as magic. That is an accepted, but not the only, synonym for the word.

How do you define "the laws of nature"? Do you suppose that you, or anyone, has the whole book on that?

You have been give many answer here, but I think you have already embraced a single definition.

So what is it you are really looking for?

[eomer]

38. What I was looking for was for someone to give a cogent definition of supernatural.

What would be the distinction that would make an entity that exists supernatural? What would be the distinction that would make an event that occurs supernatural?

[cbayer]

39. One's inability to explain it, I suppose,

coupled with a belief that it might actually exist.

To me, magic does not fit that definition while a concept of god might.

[eomer]

40. It must be more than just an inability to explain it, don't you think?

Surely there are things that we can't yet explain but that we aren't willing to give up on ever explaining and call them supernatural. Even if there are things that we will somehow never succeed at fully explaining, that still doesn't seem to be what people mean by supernatural. We may likely never fully understand and explain some things like sub-atomic particles or gravity but that doesn't mean, does it, that they are supernatural?

So I don't think that's a cogent definition of supernatural - that it is things that we can't explain but nevertheless believe they exist. The distinction that makes them supernatural is still not defined.

[cbayer]

41. Sure there are things we can't explain that we give up trying to explain.

Some even abandon or reject the idea entirely when that occurs.

You appear to be one of those people when it comes to matters of religion. Others do not.

Again, your own narrow definition of supernatural as magic dismisses all thing supernatural as inherently untrue. Not being able to grasp that others define it differently and believe or have faith that some things unproven are supernatural (unable to be proven with tools currently available) does not make that definition less valid.

I think we do understand and can prove things about subatomic particles and gravity. I've never heard anyone say that they are not fully understandable.

If you have decided that there is no cogent definition for "supernatural", it seems unlikely that you really expected to get one here.

As with many threads here, I think this may have been posted merely as an attempt to engage those who believe things you don't believe and shoot holes in their POV's.

I apologize if that is not the case.

[eomer]

42. My OP was transparently a challenge for someone to explain a concept that I reject.

It is most definitely an attempt to engage those who believe something that I don't and challenge them to be able to cogently explain it, and that's an entirely appropriate type of discussion here. Apparently you don't like that kind of discussion, I guess because it's not "kumbaya" enough for you. But fortunately you're not in charge of what we can discuss.

And, no, I didn't expect to get a cogent definition of supernatural or for God because I don't think it's possible to cogently define those things. But it's still entirely appropriate for me to ask people who use those concepts to state clearly what they mean by them, if they would wish to engage on the topic.

[cbayer]

43. See, this is how I see it.

When someone asks for an explanation for a concept that they reject, they really aren't at all interested in anyone's POV.

They generally just want to confirm their own - that they are right and anyone who sees it differently is wrong.

While that might not describe what you are doing here, it seems to fit that pattern.

You are right, I don't like that kind of discussion. It's baiting and never seems to have any positive outcome except for those that feel they have won the point (while steadfastly rejecting any other explanation than their own).

I like kumbaya. Not sure why that would be a bad thing, particularly on a site where members are supposedly committed to a mutual cause. But I also like lively debate where people actually talk to each other.

Of course I'm not in charge, but I am free to challenge things I think are non-productive or even destructive to what, again, I assume are shared goals.

You can ask anything you want, but it's not always going to go the way you had hoped.

[eomer]

44. It's called debate and you are wrong in your assessment of me.

People who engage in debate are generally not expecting to adopt the opposing position but it does happen. In fact I've many times adopted an opposing position or at least moved to an intermediate position as a result of debate on DU. You can search for and peruse my many discussions with DUers On The Other Hand and Febble, among others over the years. I love debate and am absolutely willing to change my views but only when a convincing argument requires me to.

So I don't see anything at all wrong with the discussion in this thread. It's gone just fine as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing destructive about it. It is merely an honest debate.

[cbayer]

45. Well, there's debate and there's debate.

There is debate which is contentious and has as it's goal to declare a winner.

And there's debate which is discussion in which people examine their own and other's opinions.

You seem to prefer the first, while I prefer the second.

Nothing wrong with that.

I was a parliamentarian for a time and absolutely loved the process. It's was fascinating to see how people's perspectives could change as they were presented with new information or a persuasive POV.

But I found that those that came into the debate with a rather rigid position on a matter were the least likely to sway the room. The rigid stance meant that more people would feel that their own positions were not wholly consistent with the speaker. When someone showed more flexibility and an interest in honestly entertaining another point of view, people seemed much more receptive.

In the internet world, starting a debate with a position of "I don't acknowledge even the concept of the things you believe in, let alone believe them", I don't think much debate is actually going to happen. Some might describe that as flame bait and there is no doubt that it occurs very, very frequently on DU.

[eomer]

46. I love debate on issues that matter. Some of them lead to someone changing a position, some don't.

I framed the OP the way I did because those are my honest beliefs. I don't see a good reason to and don't plan to say things other than what I really think just because that might somehow be a more pleasing debate. What I would want from others is for them to do the same, to do their best to honestly and completely explain their actual positions, whatever those may be, whether that's pleasing or not.

[pinto]

15. E = mc2

I've read that many theoretical physicists and religious researchers have come closer to share a table with biblical allegory and physicist theory.

i.e. - There was a begining. The big bang and genesis have common memes. Energy as a constant, predating mass or light. Or bound in a black hole by the still questionable force of gravity. In a mass-less and light-less universe. But there was an equivalence. Energy would equal mass and light.

Apparently as the tight bond of a black hole entropied, the bonds loosened and energy was manifested as light and elemental molecular mass, throughout the universe. Energy in the form of light brought changes to the molecular soup. Molecules coalesced to form hot stars and in cooler regions planets. On some, hydrogen bonds were formed to result in water. On some what we know as life arose in the water. Evolved over time, over and over again to become Earth.

In genesis the protagonist (God) says let there be light. And there was day and night (time). Land and sea. Life came from the sea.

I'm not saying the authors of genesis had some kind of theoretical physicist insight. Far from it. But surely they knew the seasons, the role of light in their lives, etc. And may well have looked for something beyond themselves to ascribe it all to. God seemed to work in their framework.

[edhopper]

18. Outside of "Let there be Light"

Which anyone looking at a sunrise would think that is a good beginning. The rest of the days are a jumble and don't align with anything in the evolution of the Earth.

Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.

Day 2: Heaven

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.

Day 6: Land animals and people.

Dry land and the seas before the Sun and Moon. Fish and birds together before land animals etc...

[pinto]

19. Yeah, go figure. I'm looking at the allegorical tale basically.

Not genesis as a historical time line. The big bang, fwiw, has no clear historical time line. Or it's fluid as more research is done.

I thought the echoes of the two interesting.

[edhopper]

20. Gotcha.

[skepticscott]

16. Super-natural

on its face means above or outside of nature or the natural world that we experience, and the laws that govern it. "Super-natural" things can exist in our imagination, but nothing that can influence, or be influenced by, events in our physical reality (as pretty much all "gods" are described as doing at some point), can qualify as "super-natural", nor indeed can anything that we perceive in any way.

Given that, your question of what would distinguish supernatural beings from natural beings is really unanswerable, as far as any quality that we are capable of detecting. The question of what would qualify a being (or beings) as "god" is rather more interesting, but one that is rarely asked. Is there some quality that would unequivocally distinguish the least powerful being that qualifies as a "god" from the most powerful being that isn't a god? Immortality? Not a bad try, but not totally convincing.

Consider the following scenario: A technologically advanced race (or even a single being) on another planet assembles genetic material to create working cells in a laboratory, and then clones them to create a race of creatures, who come to regard them as "gods", since they created them and gave them life. This isn't particularly far-fetched (humans will probably be able to do something approaching this some time during this century, maybe in our lifetime), and would not be fundamentally different from what many "gods" of our own mythologies are described as doing. These advanced beings would be neither supernatural nor immortal, but would be as qualified to be called "gods" as many other entities that are (though whether those other entities actually exist is another matter).

[rug]

17. Process theism takes an entirely different approach.

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/process-theism/

[eomer]

30. Thanks, agree with all that but am focusing on just one part of it.

If some being is part of nature and has no supernatural aspects then that's not God in the way I meant. That would be just a being that is alien to us. I do think there are some people who mean just that when they use the word (my wife is sometimes that way) but that seems to me a different concept that we should (and probably do) have a word for other than God.

But the rest of it is an excellent elaboration of what I was trying to ask - what are the qualities that would distinguish a being as God and how would we ever detect them. I agree with I think you say - that the answer is that we wouldn't and couldn't ever detect such a distinguishing quality.

[Starboard Tack]

24. I acknowledge the existence of infinity, but the concept is a tough one to accept

That's why we came up with the god/supernatural thing. Helps reduce the brain pain.

[eomer]

26. It doesn't for me (reduce the brain pain).

It just moves the pain from one part of my brain to another, not progress in my opinion but just kicking the can down the road.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Me neither. But for many, it is an easier way.

The human likes to have everything defined, neatly wrapped in easily digestible packages. Coming up with mystical answers for all that we don't understand is an age old marketing technique. Variations on those mystical themes create the different brands for the consumers. Of course, problems arise when some brands want to monopolize the marketplace.

[edhopper]

49. I have found when talking to believers

I often ask for evidence of God. But am told God cannot be proven or disproven. But, has God had an impact on the physical world? Wouldn't that offer some proof of his existence. I am told no, there isn't anything in the physical world to show God has acted on it. So supernatural become outside of the natural world and they know only God exists through other ways.
I am left with an Epicurus type of quandary.

If God is able to act on all time and space, but has never done so, wherefore God?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. "What does god need with a Starship?"

[edhopper]

53. Star Trek V

cool reference.

[cbayer]

51. Asking for evidence of god is a set up, because no one

can offer up such evidence and you know it.

And perhaps a better question than "has God had an impact on the physical world" would be "has God had an impact on the aspects of the world that are not physical - behavior, societies, art, music, stories".

I would think the answer you would get would be very different, as many believe that their god works indirectly and works through humans.

[trotsky]

52. That a god is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the very existence of the universe...

is a central claim to most religions, cbayer. Hard to suggest a bigger impact on the physical world than that, wouldn't you say?

And precious few believers subscribe to the limited viewpoint you mention, namely, "has God had an impact on the aspects of the world that are not physical - behavior, societies, art, music, stories". I suggest you interact with more real-world religious believers in this country and not just describe the ideal caricature you imagine or hope that most are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-do-you-believe-in-miracles/
Belief in miracles is pervasive -- nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they believe in miracles, and 19 percent are non-believers. Personal religious beliefs have an impact on whether or not people believe in miracles.

I think acknowledging reality is a good thing, cbayer. We do ourselves a great disservice to put blinders on and assume the world is as we wish it would be.

[edhopper]

54. Fine

well I admit the concept of God has had an impact on those things. Can you show me where any of those come from God and not man? People might do things and think things because they believe in God. But why is that any proof of God, any more than those who claim his physical impact?

[cbayer]

55. Of course I can't show you that.

No one can.

There is no proof of god and to ask people for it can only be rhetorical.

Are there those that have been divinely inspired? I don't know. Do you?

[edhopper]

56. Again

I see not one shred of evidence that any of those things are divinely inspired. I see the same level of beauty or excellence or whatever criteria in those who say it is from God as those who say it is from man. God is superfluous in the discussion. An arbitrary layer added where none is needed.

[cbayer]

57. You're not seeing it does not mean that others don't see it.

That's where you appear to get hung up.

You don't see it. You don't believe in it. It is superfluous and arbitrary in your world view.

But you also don't see that other people are having very different experiences and perceptions than you, and it is not superfluous and arbitrary to them.

The only way to make sense of that is to presume that you hold the position that you are absolutely right and they are absolutely wrong.

Is that what you really think? Do you have any evidence to support that?

[edhopper]

58. No

I think they are making assumptions without any corroboration.
People are mistaken about a lot of things, think and feel things that turn our to be quite wrong.
Without a way for verification I see no need to assume that God is speaking to them just on their subjective experience.
And since there is a more prosaic explanation in most cases, the supernatural becomes less and less plausible.
I simply don't agree with your "But we can never know" position.
Absent any verifying evidence, the default is that it doesn't exist. No need to [prove something isn't, one simply asks for evidence, any evidence.

You also have this very vague, wobbly concept of God, which is much less defined than most of the believers here.

[cbayer]

59. They are making assumptions without corroboration.

That's why it's called faith.

I'm sure both of us have been mistaken about a lot of things.

They don't need for you to assume anything. Unless someone is trying to foist their beliefs on you, perhaps just leaving them alone is the best alternative.

I know you don't agree, but until you present me with some evidence that you do hold the truth, I will regard your position on this the same as I do a believers. Your default is that there isn't. Someone else's default is that there is. Neither of you have a leg to stand on when it comes to actual truth.

I don't really have any concept of god at all. I'm best described as an apatheist and I am definitely not a believer.

What I do have is a high level of regard for people who embrace religion and use it to further the causes I also embrace.

I see no point in dismissing them, denigrating them, trying to convince them they are wrong or out-argue them.

Why would I? We are on the same team.

[edhopper]

60. And I'll give you the last word

Happy New Year.

[cbayer]

61. Happy New Year to you, edhopper.