Materialism Vs Theism

Author: EtrnlVw ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 86
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    Some random thoughts....this is not an argument, just comparing thought processes.
    Proponents of a purely natural and materialistic means of the universe appearing tend to look at the order of operations backwards compared to the Creationist.

    Materialist/Naturalist- processes= results= intelligence. (Matter over mind)
    Theist/Creationist-  intelligence= processes= results. (Mind over matter)

    The Materialist sees intelligence as the results of processes whereas the Theist sees that processes are the results of intelligence...(intelligence as to why processes occur.)

    The Materialist sees the results (of our universe) as a byproduct of the process, the Theist sees processes as a production intended for the results.

    To the Materialist the outcome is secondary (incidental) to the process, to the Theist the process is secondary to the outcome.

    The Materialist trusts that the processes are why the results occurred whereas the Theist believes that the results are why the process occurs and intelligence as to why there is a process.

    Processes are obviously why we have the results of our universe, only the naturalist puts a question mark before the results to understand why and how they occurred whereas the Theist puts a question mark not only before the results but also before the processes to understand why and how processes occurred.

    The Naturalist sees no reason to question why processes occur, the Theists sees reason to question why processes occur.

    The Naturalist sees no intention in the production of our universe whereas the Theist sees intention in the products of our world.

    The Materialist affirms no intelligence in any given process but the Theist affirms that the processes are intelligent.

    The Materialist asserts no intelligence is needed to generate a process compared to the Theist who claims intelligence is needed to generate anything of a process.

    It is apparent to the Naturalist/Materialist that processes and inanimate forces can spontaneously generate processes to bring things into existence whereas the Theist asserts that a mind (intelligence) is mandatory to understand how something should work/unfold that they may exist.

    The materialist believes that what is needed is secondary to what exists, and the Theist believes that what exists is secondary to what is needed....(what is needed is foremost to what exists).

    The Materialist believes that there is first "light, heat and element" and then the byproducts are the resultant of what needs them, as opposed to the Theist who believes that light, heat and element are what exists to support what needs them.

    What is needed are the effects of what exists (materialist) whereas what exists are the effects of what is needed (theist).

    The Materialist asserts that the earth and its relative position is why bodies exist as compared to the Theist who asserts that bodies are why the earth and its relative position exists.

    So the Materialist accepts that an ecosystem exists due to the arrangement of planetary forces while the Theist accepts that an ecosystem is why a planetary arrangement exists, that it may flourish. 

    So the Naturalist assumes that a planetary arrangement has zero intention and the Theist assumes it exists as it is because of intention.

    And the Naturalist assumes that the fundamental forces of nature determine all that exists as opposed to the Theist that accepts the forces of nature exist to support all that exists. 

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Nice ontology
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,098
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    I highly doubt that this ummmmm, " universe " thing was here before me. 



  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,098
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    --> @EtrnlVw
    If God built this universe and put it right here.  imagine what else he would of built over there. 

    Nice post man FULL STOP

    But
    But.
    I don't like it. 
    The labels.  Materialist and Naturalist , Theist, creation bloody ist.     being by how broad it all is.  I just don't like it. 

    The second reason why i don't like it is. 
    INTELLIGENCE. 
    What the hell is this intelligence thing you are talking about?
    I find it easy picturing things but ummmm , intelligence. 
    I can't do it. 

    So I suppose I'm just like a.
    A person.
    I'm like a person.  
    Well I think I am. 
    No I am. 
    I'm a person. 
    A peronalist. 
    No. 
    Just.
    Just 
    A person.
    Yeah a person.

     





  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    If God built this universe and put it right here.  imagine what else he would of built over there. 

    Exactly, why limit the eternal creativeness of God? why limit it to what we only have the ability to observe through a restrictive medium? I like your thought there!

    The labels.  Materialist and Naturalist , Theist, creation bloody ist.     being by how broad it all is.  I just don't like it. 

    Ehh, they're just terms used to express different view points about our existence.
    Materialist-
    a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained 

    Naturalist-
    a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance
    the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena

    Theist-
    one who believes in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source

    What the hell is this intelligence thing you are talking about?

    It just describes consciousness really, which is the preceding factor of intelligence. It's what you are, it describes being. 

    God is a conscious Being, therefore intelligence follows. 

    Intelligence-
    the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

    Consciousness-
    the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings
    the awareness or perception of something by a person
    awareness of one's own existence

    Yes I know they are generic terms sorry about that, but until I find some other terms to illustrate what I mean they will have to suffice for now. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    I find it easy picturing things but ummmm , intelligence. 

    I'm basically correlating intelligence with the productions of our universe. As it requires intelligence to manufacture something to generate a usable result or outcome, foreknowledge is necessary for understanding how something should work. Therefore correlating the processes of our universe with foreknowledge and that would indicate the universe was established though an intelligent Source, which of course could only be the Creator (God).
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @zedvictor4
    Nice ontology

    Thank you, maybe it will help people think more what they accept about our existence from either side.
  • FLRW
    FLRW avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 448
    2
    2
    5
    FLRW avatar
    FLRW
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Yes, the Creator was Bumba.  According to the Boshongo people of central Africa, in the beginning, there was only darkness, water, and the great god Bumba. One day Bumba, in pain from a stomach ache, vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water, leaving land. Still in pain, Bumba vomited up the moon, the stars, and then some animals. The leopard, the crocodile, the turtle, and finally, man.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Deb-8-a-bull
    I highly doubt that this ummmmm, " universe " thing was here before me. 

    Lol, if we're talking about your intuition that would be correct. 

    If we're talking about your entrance into this particular world and your perception of it, it would be incorrect. The universe definitely existed before your physical body...

    But if we're talking about the soul, you might be correct again. You might even instinctively know that. Before the world your soul was with God, that's the Reality you came out of, though now your perception of reality blinds you to that, while you would innately feel it, you may not understand it. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @FLRW
    It doesn't matter which Creator you point to, names are irrelevant, names are just mans way of giving a thing description. How God created it is another matter, some men have a better sense of logic than others. Either way mans descriptions have no relevance to the reality we're existing within a created universe. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @FLRW
    If you want a more realistic idea of creation here's my post in the topic....
    "What's your best argument for God's existence?"
    This is a universal conception, you may have already read through it IDK but it has no need to rely on any particular religious ideology. Religions are just mans way of expressing the same overarching observation or innate feelings about the universe. Descriptions vary but the concept of a Creator is universal so while not every attempt from man is an accurate description of creation it's still the same basic idea.

     "Be open-minded about it though, think about what I'm going to say here before you spontaneously reject it because of your preconceived notions, just give it proper thought and see what fits and makes sense.


    Without the existence of God you must account for the processes of our universe and why they occur, meaning reflect on and articulate (think further on) how inanimate forces begin to produce intelligent productions on their own will. If you do not, or you simply ignore that you're essentially skipping a very important detail and not being intellectually consistent, you must ask the same questions about such processes as you do the results of those processes! why does it occur, how does it occur?
    I'll have you consider your own assumption about our world. That's just to get you thinking about what and why you believe what you do without any real objection to it. And that the alternative might just be a better proposition or a more logical premise.

    I can lay out that there really are only two options available in regards to the existence of the universe just to make clear how simplistic this really is. Either God created it, or God didn't. This means that either theism is true or materialism/atheism is true, and if I can get you to see that materialism is an absurd conclusion I have a shot at getting you to consider the only other option.

    I can do that by correlating the processes of our universe with intelligence, or correlating productions with a producer, that construction is always associated with a constructor. To do that I have to convince you (have you think through) that inanimate materials cannot begin to generate desired outcomes and intelligent beings by themselves and I do that simply through commonsense. We know through our own world observations mind and thought (agency) are always associated with processes and productions. To understand the mechanisms and materials involved in the manufacturing of something there first needs to be foreknowledge, to have understanding of how a process can work to create a usable product there must first be awareness. And so this would indicate very convincingly that Agency was involved in the production of our universe through the factors of mind and thought (foreknowledge).

    We know that inanimate materials don't produce things by themselves in the same way bricks don't construct themselves into buildings alone, materials are gathered and utilized as a means to produce a desired outcome first through a user, by thought and mind (intelligence). Foreknowledge is necessary to understand how a process should begin and unfold, what materials are needed and to achieve a particular product or result. To believe the alternative is to accept an absurdity, something that is not believable.
    I understand that a person becomes accustom to a certain way of thinking and what they believe, which is why I would want to get them really thinking about what they have accepted as true.
    Only one of two options is true, only one fits with reality as we know it. I would argue for Theism obviously as being the superior option.



    I start with the processes of the universe and how things are produced through those processes within our universe. Being that intelligent processes (productions that produce a desired outcome) can be seen through intention and foreknowledge by thought and mind (AKA agency) such processes indicate those very factors themselves.
    The actions of energy are the key element to observe and consider this. How anyone could accept or believe without question that inanimate forces and materials could begin to produce/generate processes as if they had minds is somewhat unbelievable. I'm not trying to insult anyone that's just my opinion on the matter, but it is an educated assumption not just a bare assertion. I've thought about this for a long time and rather than just believing that these processes generated themselves because no one knows why they occur I've made a better estimation.
    Knowing that God exists it's not just a matter of me dismissing this objection rather I just have to show how it works instead. If it's true it should fit and the logic should follow simply and smoothly correct?

    I can answer for why energy exists at all and why it acts as an intelligent force within our universe using the eternal conscious awareness of the Creator. Energy itself is accepted as being neither created or destroyed and exists both independent of form and within form. In other words it is considered omnipresent and eternal both of which are associated with the attributes of God coincidentally. Isn't that interesting and ironic? the properties or attributes of energy are expressed the same way as the qualities of God! so now we have a fact and a proposition, so the question is how do they come together and fit? that's the easy part...we start with observing how the universe acts as a whole and make correlations.

    Awareness exists wherever something exists, there is no place something exists where awareness is not present that is what makes it exist. Consciousness is proposed within spirituality as being uncreated and eternal, that is....the conscious awareness of God and my premise is that wherever you observe energy you have the presence of awareness and wherever you have the presence of awareness there is energy as well. I can logically make this determination by observing how energy acts within creation and so it fits with the attributes of the Creator. In other words it works.
    It is the very activity of conscious awareness that generates energy, it co-exists with conscious activity and therefore energy co-exists with the consciousness of God. Did you know that your thoughts and activity of mind emanates/generates energy? The conscious awareness of the eternal God emanates and generates the same presence of energy on a mega scale. So energy is not a created thing rather it's generated, it exists simultaneously with consciousness. This is the first step in the utilization of an inanimate force to create form within the universe, to begin the very processes of constructing our world. Basically energy then would be the first accessible tool to begin creating.....
    Before the Big Bang was conscious activity alone with the co-existing presence of energy, this conscious activity was omnipresent and without a localized point of reference as it is with energy. This massive Reality generated megatons of energy no one could conceive of. This incredible force of energy was condensed and released to produce what we call a Big Bang, (the moment our universe began to expand at such an accelerated pace). God knew this would produce even more elements to begin utilizing through the fusion and chemical changes of force and heat generating new materials.

    God used and initiated the very processes of the birth and death of stars to generate light, heat and elements that would continually seed our universe, this is the very foundation of making it inhabitable and usable as a place to create physical bodies for souls to experience life. God uses the processes of creating stars and the formation of planets then establishing arrangements, solar systems, galaxies and ecosystems that would be suitable for many forms of life known and unknown to our planet. God develops the processes of evolution to transform inanimate materials into something usable for life and the soul. These worlds, planets and embodiments are created for the purpose of the soul having experience within creation.

    It is through the very processes themselves that I can support such a premise through correlation, logic and common sense. The evidence, or indication is strong and lends to conclude only one answer for our existence. When it is all said and done there is only two options but only one that truly works. God created our universe through intelligent processes or God did not, which would indicate inanimate forces began acting like animate mind and thought, which of course is ridiculous.
    In the end one view is superior to the other but only one can  be compatible with commonsense.

    The argument does not end though, that's only one angle of thought to begin a solid premise to start with. The evidence that correlates with a transcendent (spiritual) reality is overwhelming. There's more observations and experience of spirituality than any other single topic known, combine that with allowing for more thought on why processes occur at all and you have a decent starting point."

  • FLRW
    FLRW avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 448
    2
    2
    5
    FLRW avatar
    FLRW
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Before the world your soul was with God
    What language did the soul speak with God before it learned a language in a human brain?
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @FLRW
    What language did the soul speak with God before it learned a language in a human brain?

    Why did it need to speak like a human would need to speak?
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @FLRW
    The soul was within God, so there are no barriers of understanding, it's just being. God does not communicate through human language lol, that is a human creation so that we have means of communicating what another person may not know. With God that problem does not exist. When you entered the world you then required to learn the ways in which these people communicate. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @FLRW
    If your soul was within God, it would be like pouring water back into the ocean, they essentially become like one, so even communication is somewhat of a blurred concept between God and the soul. Only when you leave God you enter a dual environment where the barriers of communication and separation become a reality. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    Is it okay or acceptable to maintain a materialistic perspective of our universe? certainly, I'm not knocking that or putting it down. It certainly is natural to perceive that which is immediately in front of our faces with no further recourse and simply leave it at that. However, upon looking deeper into the equation it should start to become obvious that reality as we observe it is more than just a mechanical material and inanimate process of events. Intuition at some point should kick in and the gears should be allowed to turn. I'm not talking about wishful thinking or what a person wants to be the case, not at all. Creationism can be accepted without either of those factors just through observing reality independent of guided knowledge.
    Academics is a beautiful thing but when a person is subjected to restricted/limited ways of thinking, or controlled by someone else's ideas it can make a person who appears intelligent become more like a robotic mechanism that simply processes information but is devoid of the ability to simply absorb truth as it exists independent of another persons input. The practice of observing rather than chasing thoughts or what we perceive as some useful source of information is very valuable. Young vulnerable minds can get lost in a web of restrictive usage of thought. It's kind of ironic that we put so much emphasis in thinking that we forget that many times thinking is nothing but a conditioned process, and for those who are subjected to continuously absorbing other people's rationale and beliefs they become essentially victims and victims of ignorance. 
    This applies to religion as well not just secular academics! the same can be said for those who follow religious institutions, and while creationism could be an absolutely true proposition their own belief system could be responsible for the indoctrination of false ideals. 
    We need academics obviously, we need access to knowledge that has an objective basis but the truth be told truth exists as it is independent of who said this and who believes that no matter where that information is coming from. A further problem is that a study like the scientific method could be completely misconstrued as something other than what it is and what it's limits are. 
    For example we use such a method to determine how something works, how something occurs and then we assume because we have that ability that it accounts for every factor involved. If you wanted to know how this delicious cake I produced was made I could give you the recipe for the cake and show you what process was used in making it. Would you then assume that the cake made itself or produced itself? of course not, that would be stupid....this is the misconception of how the scientific method works, that  we can show the materials of how something was put together and by what process and then assume there was no maker of those ingredients, and something produced itself independent of agency. So in essence we manipulate what was once a neutral study by adding an unnecessary component, an ideology and assume a worldview. 
    I bring this up because I observe it all the time! I see atheists using science as a means to reject the idea that creation was put together through agency, all because they can show how a process works or how something occurred. But a recipe does the very same thing, showing us the materials and process by which something is produced but never do we make the assumption that the recipe alone is enough to produce something, there needs to be someone who puts it all together, who had foreknowledge to create the recipe. 
    I'm just rambling here but I'm rambling because I see a real problem taking place and it's very obvious to me. It would be beneficial for anyone to not place such barriers in the path of their revelations about what they are and where the came from. The same problem we have with the theory of evolution as a process, it's NOT a worldview or some ideology it's simply a process that occurs to bring something into existence from nothing and this is compatible with a Creator in the same way I explained with recipes. Someone added an unnecessary component to the equation, people became conditioned to believing that and now there is a misconception about that process. Now it is taught and accepted as a materialistic approach to understanding our origins and that is very unfortunate. 
     

  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    Dinosaurs! yes God created the dinosaurs isn't that obvious! you really believe that evolution produced giant reptiles through a random process lol....and then gave way to the human species? come on seriously? that's like believing in a dramatic fairy tale.

    If you understand the creative ability of God then it would make more sense to you why such things existed. Giant lizards right? Creatively speaking God is much like a kid, in that there are no limits in what God might create, the only factor is time itself and that's irrelevant to an eternal Creator. Processes are the doorway in the physical realm to manifest ideas into reality but the processes and results themselves signify intelligence and creativity.
    There are realms that exist where physical processes aren't a factor in that a succession of time plays no role because the laws of physics have no relevance in the way we understand them. Ask me how that works!
    Dinosaurs had more than a creative role though....these lesser conscious creatures were used like that of a science project, where they were observed in how their physical systems reacted to their environment. God used these creatures as a means to develop the proper functions of more advanced species. When their creative and observed role was no longer needed God destroyed them to make way for what God ultimately desired for this planet.

    Most people would assume God and perfection would have no need to employ an observation of testing but that's BS, creation is as much of a testing for God as any newly constructed idea and desired manifestation. God has to put ideas into effect in real time, and while God may have perfected an idea in one thought and one sweep of a process each idea and production must be tried and perfected through observation, whether it fails or prevails.

    Those who study planetary science and the fossil record of earth should be as interested in God as any pulpit preacher. 

  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,723
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Yes. I have seen it from both sides. As a materialist AS SOON AS you start delving at least a  tiny bit below the surface, you begin to suspect what is really going on. Most materialists will ignore that. They will accept cognitive dissonance over facing that reality may not be what they want it to be.
  • FLRW
    FLRW avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 448
    2
    2
    5
    FLRW avatar
    FLRW
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Read University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne's book, Faith Vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible, in which he argued that the scientific outlook — with features such as weighing publicly available evidence, testing one’s theories against nature and revising them in the light of contrary data — is really only compatible with atheism.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @janesix
    Yes. I have seen it from both sides. As a materialist AS SOON AS you start delving at least a tiny bit below the surface, you begin to suspect what is really going on. Most materialists will ignore that. They will accept cognitive dissonance over facing that reality may not be what they want it to be.

    I don't see why any rational person would ever want it to be that way, especially if there is sufficient reason to believe otherwise. The reality of God should be the most fascinating thing, to me it is anyways. If I were an atheist and I had good cause to ditch such an absurd belief I would want to learn about God as fast I could! and everything that pertains to that Reality.
    As I've spent most of my life as a Theist I've still not had enough time to learn as much as I would like and I'm obsessed with learning about God and creation.

  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @FLRW
    Faith Vs. Fact

    I'll stop you right there, there is no faith "vs" fact, they work hand and hand not contrary to one another. Stop being silly. 

    Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible

    Theism and science are most certainly compatible, they both study two different natures of our experience. They don't conflict rather they work together, they work in harmony with one another as they each examine parallel realities not opposing realities. Try again.
    Actually I'm getting quite sick of being pegged as anti-science and having to constantly defend such an absurd notion, because quite frankly it's immature and untrue. Had you read my post (#11) I show you how they ARE compatible and how they fit with one another. I can tell your little mind is a one way dead end though. 

    is really only compatible with atheism.

    Lol Sorry Bubba, atheism does not own science. I'd hate to be the guy that burst your bubbles but science is a neutral study, it is not atheism and atheism is not science. It's funny though, I was just arguing with somebody that says atheists never say this. Atheism is not a study of our world, it's not even a study...it's feature is that it lacks belief in God, that's it. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,536
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @FLRW
    Read University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne's book

    Some of you atheists think you're so smart but all you do is constantly absorb other people's ideas and thoughts. Ironically, as yal are the ones who mock religious folk for being "indoctrinated" and parade yourselves as the "free thinkers" when in actuality you're guilty of the very same thing. Some of you all don't think for yourselves you simply accept what other atheists believe. This explains why most of you assume the same things and repeat the same things. Read post #16.
  • SkepticalOne
    SkepticalOne avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 703
    3
    3
    6
    SkepticalOne avatar
    SkepticalOne
    --> @EtrnlVw
    If the question is materialism versus theism, Occam's razor prefers materialism. Theism puts (unnecessary) assumptions on top of a material reality.

  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,723
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Yep. Good post.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 55
    Forum posts: 2,133
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @SkepticalOne
    Occam's razor prefers materialism.
    Sure, as long as it's sharp. Blades dull, even Occam's. Occam would be shocked to discover no one has sharpened his blade in 600 years. He did a fair amount of shaving with it in his lifetime, let alone later use. The razor is becoming as tired an excuse as blaming God for everything.