"proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked"

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

Simples.
If God knows you're going to pick A, it is because He knows, not that your choice
was predetermined.
The trouble with this so called paradox is that it doesn't take into account what
knowledge actually is, or how we obtain it.
In all scriptures there is an aspect of God which is in the heart of each individual living entiity. This aspect knows the living entity in every way possible, and this is how God
would know the choice we make. Not that He just somehow knows everything without experience.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dywyddyr,
Simples.
If God knows you're going to pick A, it is because He knows, not that your choice was predetermined.

If your choice is known beforehand then it must have been predetermined.

The trouble with this so called paradox is that it doesn't take into account what knowledge actually is, or how we obtain it.

Wrong.
It's got nothing to do with how it's obtained. If it's knowledge it must be true.

In all scriptures there is an aspect of God which is in the heart of each individual living entiity. This aspect knows the living entity in every way possible, and this is how God would know the choice we make. Not that He just somehow knows everything without experience.
jan.

And we're back to "how can you possibly choose B if god knows you're going to choose A?".
If you choose B then god didn't know...
If you choose A there was no free will because it was known (i.e. true) beforehand, before you even started to consider which you'd pick.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Wrong.
It's got nothing to do with how it's obtained. If it's knowledge it must be true.

Truth is truth, knowledge is how one arrives at the truth.
The truth of the matter is, the living entity has the god-given
power to choose. That is the knowledge. God would know what
the living entity would choose, because He knows the living entity,
not that the living entity has to choose based on a predestined knowledge.
That is not free will.

And we're back to "how can you possibly choose B if god knows you're going to choose A?".

It is the nature of the living entity that makes the ultimate
decision to choose.

If you choose B then god didn't know...

If you choose B, then you did so based on your particular nature.
God knows your nature, which is the underlying principle for your
movements.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dywyddyr,
Truth is truth, knowledge is how one arrives at the truth.

Nope.
Knowledge is knowledge.
If something is known it must be true. And if it's true then it can't be wrong.

The truth of the matter is, the living entity has the god-given power to choose.

Supposition.

That is the knowledge. God would know what the living entity would choose, because He knows the living entity,not that the living entity has to choose based on a predestined knowledge.
That is not free will.

If it is known infallibly what is going to be chosen, beforehand, then the choice is "fixed". The "chooser" cannot pick anything else. Therefore it IS predestination.

It is the nature of the living entity that makes the ultimate decision to choose.

That's what the whole debate is about: you're assuming that we do have free will and then trying to fit that into the other assumption: that god knows what we'll do.

If you choose B, then you did so based on your particular nature.
God knows your nature, which is the underlying principle for your movements.

Exactly: if it is our nature to choose B then there is no free will: we're simply doing as we're "programmed" by nature...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Nope.
Knowledge is knowledge.
If something is known it must be true. And if it's true then it can't be wrong.

I think we're saying the same thing, but I will add, knowledge is only truth
if it is truth. The truth is there regardless of knowledge, it cannot be false.

Supposition.

Then the whole debate becomes supposition.

If it is known infallibly what is going to be chosen, beforehand, then the choice is "fixed".

No, it means the knower has perfect knowledge.

The "chooser" cannot pick anything else. Therefore it IS predestination.

You've contradicted yourself. The "chooser" by dint of the name can pick something else, but chooses not to, because of reasons known to him.
If there is predestination, it is only because of the "chooser" choice.

That's what the whole debate is about: you're assuming that we do have free will and then trying to fit that into the other assumption: that god knows what we'll do.

God knows what we will do, because He knows us, our every thought, desire, and deed, from the very begining. That is knowledge. Knowledge is not based on no-knowledge.

Exactly: if it is our nature to choose B then there is no free will: we're simply doing as we're "programmed" by nature...

If one becomes imprisoned by ones own desires, then one will have no choice
but to choose that which one desires.
So one who cannot see the forest for the trees, has only themself to blame.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dywyddyr,
I think we're saying the same thing, but I will add, knowledge is only truth
if it is truth. The truth is there regardless of knowledge, it cannot be false.

And if it can never be false then we cannot ever choose the opposite of what is known we will choose: therefore the choice is effectively pre-selected.

Then the whole debate becomes supposition.

Nope.
The debate is about free will being incompatible with god. It's an either/ or thing.

No, it means the knower has perfect knowledge.

And if the knowledge is perfect then we're back to "you cannot EVER choose anything other than what god knows you will pick": the choice was decided long ago.

You've contradicted yourself. The "chooser" by dint of the name can pick something else, but chooses not to, because of reasons known to him.
If there is predestination, it is only because of the "chooser" choice.

Wrong again. Why do you think I put the word "chooser" in quote marks?
Either he is a chooser OR it's predestined. One or the other: until we know (or decide) then the word "chooser" is the best we have...

God knows what we will do, because He knows us, our every thought, desire, and deed, from the very begining. That is knowledge. Knowledge is not based on no-knowledge.

And if it's knowledge it can't be wrong: no choice.

If one becomes imprisoned by ones own desires, then one will have no choice but to choose that which one desires.
So one who cannot see the forest for the trees, has only themself to blame.

Specious point: do you pick walking or the bus? How much does "desire" come into it?
If it is KNOWN what we will do at any (and every) juncture then there is no choice.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

And if it can never be false then we cannot ever choose the opposite of what is known we will choose: therefore the choice is effectively pre-selected.

Huh! That makes no sense.
Knowledge is required to know truth, if we
accept knowledge that is false, then it will become
evident (eventually) that the knowledge is false.

Nope
The debate is about free will being incompatible with god. It's an either/ or thing.

Obviously not, otherwise we would agree to disagree and be done with it.

And if the knowledge is perfect then we're back to "you cannot EVER choose anything other than what god knows you will pick": the choice was decided long ago.

The two are unrelated.
You must show how having perfect knowledge affects choice.

Wrong again. Why do you think I put the word "chooser" in quote marks?
Either he is a chooser OR it's predestined. One or the other: until we know (or decide) then the word "chooser" is the best we have...

You "chose" the word "chooser", because you instinctively know that
we have free will.
You are IMHO using this argument to prove God does not exist, and/or, belief in God is illogical.

And if it's knowledge it can't be wrong: no choice.

How long was the 'Piltdown Man' regarded as knowledge of the missing evolutinary link, and believed by men of knowledge, before it was proven
false?
Good knowledge can lead to truth, but it is not truth.
Truth is SEPARATE from the pursuit of knowledge.
We now know that the tale of the "Piltdown Man" was believed
to be true out of nothing more than choice, as in truth, it was a fake.

Specious point: do you pick walking or the bus? How much does "desire" come into it?

It depends on me.
If it is a nice sunny day I may feel like walking, or
if it's pissing down with rain I may feel like catching the bus.
Whatever takes my fancy (desire).
However, I may be forced to take a bus if I need to get somewhere
in a hurry. But the choice is still mine, as it is my desire to get where
i'm going to on time.

If it is KNOWN what we will do at any (and every) juncture then there is no choice.

The two are unrelated.
Please show how you come to this conclusion.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Huh! That makes no sense.

Then you're failing to understand the argument.

Knowledge is required to know truth, if we accept knowledge that is false, then it will become evident (eventually) that the knowledge is false.

If it's false it's not knowledge.
So if god has the knowledge that we will pick A it MUST be true that we will do so.

Obviously not, otherwise we would agree to disagree and be done with it.

So you're still failing to understand the argument.

The two are unrelated.

Wrong.

You must show how having perfect knowledge affects choice.

If it's knowledge it must be true: therefore if it is true that we will pick A before we do so we cannot pick A.

You "chose" the word "chooser", because you instinctively know that
we have free will.

Oh you're assuming...

You are IMHO using this argument to prove God does not exist, and/or, belief in God is illogical.

Also wrong: the argument (from Cris) is that free will and god (if he is omniscient) are incompatible. It's an either/ or.

How long was the 'Piltdown Man' regarded as knowledge of the missing evolutinary link, and believed by men of knowledge, before it was proven false?
Good knowledge can lead to truth, but it is not truth.
Truth is SEPARATE from the pursuit of knowledge.
We now know that the tale of the "Piltdown Man" was believed to be true out of nothing more than choice, as in truth, it was a fake.

And therefore wasn't knowledge, it was belief.

It depends on me.
If it is a nice sunny day I may feel like walking, or if it's pissing down with rain I may feel like catching the bus.
Whatever takes my fancy (desire).
However, I may be forced to take a bus if I need to get somewhere in a hurry. But the choice is still mine, as it is my desire to get where i'm going to on time.

And if it was known beforehand that you'd take the bus how could you decide to walk?

The two are unrelated.
Please show how you come to this conclusion.

One more time:
If it is known (i.e. TRUE) that I will do X then, regardless of whatever I tell myself about "choosing" I will, inevitably, do X. The "choice" will not exist (or ever exist) since the outcome of that choice was known and true before I made the "choice". I could not "decide" to do Y, or Z, of F or H because it was, even before I "thought about" which to do, true that I would do X.

It comes back, again to:
if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Then you're failing to understand the argument.

I understand the argument, but what you said didn't make sense
unless there is another definition of knowledge that is not defined
in the dictionary.

If it's false it's not knowledge.

But it was regarded as mainstream knowledge at the time.

So if god has the knowledge that we will pick A it MUST be true that we will do so.

Yes, but that only shows that God has perfect knowledge, not
that we therefore have no free will. We still choose to pick A because
it fits our personal situation.

So you're still failing to understand the argument.

You're the one trying to fit squares in round pegs, not me.
AFAIC it is very simple unless you choose to play with defini.tions

If it's knowledge it must be true: therefore if it is true that we will pick A before we do so we cannot pick A.

Explain how if something is true, it affect personal choices.
People chose to accept the knowledge of Piltdown Man, although it was
untrue. What if it was true, how would it have changed the outcome?

Oh you're assuming...

Yes, if you like.
Do you have any other explanation?

Also wrong: the argument (from Cris) is that free will and god (if he is omniscient) are incompatible. It's an either/ or.

You both need to define what is knowledge, and therefore, what is perfect
knowledge. What is truth, and how truth and knowledge effect our day to day choices. Otherwise you can say what you like.

And therefore wasn't knowledge, it was belief.

It was knowledge, it just wasn't truth.

And if it was known beforehand that you'd take the bus how could you decide to walk?

Why would I want to walk if I decided to take the bus?
And how could someone else who knows me inside out, knowing I would take
the bus, influence my decision in any way shape or form?

One more time:
If it is known (i.e. TRUE) that I will do X then, regardless of whatever I tell myself about "choosing" I will, inevitably, do X. The "choice" will not exist (or ever exist) since the outcome of that choice was known and true before I made the "choice". I could not "decide" to do Y, or Z, of F or H because it was, even before I "thought about" which to do, true that I would do X.

It comes back, again to:
if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

If it helps your choice to believe that God does not exist, or belief in God is illogical, therefore irrational, then so be it.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I understand the argument, but what you said didn't make sense unless there is another definition of knowledge that is not defined in the dictionary.

Really?
Knowledge is a justified true belief.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

But it was regarded as mainstream knowledge at the time.

And?
It turned out not to be knowledge: in other wasn't, not being true it wasn't knowledge.

Yes, but that only shows that God has perfect knowledge, not that we therefore have no free will. We still choose to pick A because it fits our personal situation.

Wrong again.
If it's knowledge it must be true. And therefore we cannot "choose" otherwise.

You're the one trying to fit squares in round pegs, not me.
AFAIC it is very simple unless you choose to play with defini.tions

Then you clearly haven't understood the argument.

Explain how if something is true, it affect personal choices.

Because we cannot make it false (by picking something else, for example).

Yes, if you like.
Do you have any other explanation?

We may not have free will. You assumed that I "instinctively know that we have free will". Incorrect.

You both need to define what is knowledge, and therefore, what is perfect knowledge. What is truth, and how truth and knowledge effect our day to day choices. Otherwise you can say what you like.

I'm using the actual definition of knowledge: a justified, true belief.
And true means "not false" (at its simplest).

It was knowledge, it just wasn't truth.

If it wasn't true then it was belief not knowledge.

Why would I want to walk if I decided to take the bus?
And how could someone else who knows me inside out, knowing I would take
the bus, influence my decision in any way shape or form?

Once more showing that you're failing to understand.
If it's known (i.e. true) before you "decide" then you cannot do otherwise, or that "knowledge" wasn't knowledge: i.e. it wasn't true.

If it helps your choice to believe that God does not exist, or belief in God is illogical, therefore irrational, then so be it.

In other words you can't actually answer the question.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

We may not have free will. You assumed that I "instinctively know that we have free will". Incorrect.

As far as you're concerned you have free will, right?
If not then please explain how you make decisions,.

I'm using the actual definition of knowledge: a justified, true belief.
And true means "not false" (at its simplest).

I can relate to these definitions.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/fe...ionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=knowledge

If it wasn't true then it was belief not knowledge.

We definately know that now, in hindsight.
But at the time it was regarded as knowledge, not belief, and
it was espoused by an established institute of knowledge meaning
it must have been true because the evidence said so.

Had we been having this conversation at that time, you most probably
would not give me the time of day if I'd have said the evidence was false,
and the scientists in question were liars. This proves that knowledge is not
truth unless it is true, justified or not.

Once more showing that you're failing to understand.
If it's known (i.e. true) before you "decide" then you cannot do otherwise, or that "knowledge" wasn't knowledge: i.e. it wasn't true.

Can true knowledge of a thing be known without understanding that thing?
Do you think God has knowledge irregardless of experience, and everything that comes into being dances to the tune of that knowledge?
If yes, why?

In other words you can't actually answer the question.

I answered the question.
In short, I do things based on my own decision within the
boundary of my limitations.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

As far as you're concerned you have free will, right?

I'd like to think so.
But that could merely be the way I'm destined to be.

If not then please explain how you make decisions,.

You're assuming again.

I can relate to these definitions.
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/fe...ionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=knowledge

Okay, they include that it must be true to be knowledge.

We definately know that now, in hindsight.
But at the time it was regarded as knowledge, not belief, and it was espoused by an established institute of knowledge meaning it must have been true because the evidence said so.

"It must have been true because the evidence said so"?
Yet the evidence that it was fake must also have been there all along. If something is true it's true: regardless of belief.
Piltdown was never true. It was believed to be (erroneously).

From the outset, there were scientists who expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find.

Wiki.

Had we been having this conversation at that time, you most probably
would not give me the time of day if I'd have said the evidence was false,
and the scientists in question were liars.

You're assuming again...

This proves that knowledge is not truth unless it is true, justified or not.

Knowledge is not knowledge unless it's true.

Can true knowledge of a thing be known without understanding that thing?

Which has what to do with the question?
What is "true knowledge"?

Do you think God has knowledge irregardless of experience, and everything that comes into being dances to the tune of that knowledge?
If yes, why?

If yes to which? There are two questions in there.
The first I have no opinion.
The second must, of necessity (given my position in this thread), be "yes".
If there is knowledge then everything "dances to the tune of that knowledge" (although that seems to presuppose [as Scifes keeps doing] some form of coercion: that's incorrect, the knowledge flows from the reality: reality is the way it is and will, and can only, be, and knowledge is aware of that).
It can't be otherwise.

I answered the question.
In short, I do things based on my own decision within the boundary of my limitations.

If you're claiming that "If it helps your choice to believe that God does not exist, or belief in God is illogical, therefore irrational, then so be it" was your answer then you didn't actually answer the question: you sidestepped it.
The question posed is NOT about god being illogical, or irrational, it's about the incompatibility of god's omniscience AND free will.
One or the other of them must go.

 

[Cris]

scifes,

give me a model of a choice made out of free will, even if it was an imaginary one.

If everything is the result of cause and effect then free will may not exist.

If the future is knowable, note that it doesn't matter whether anything actually has knowledge of the future or not, then everything is predetermined and free will cannot exist.

If the future is unknowable, and that means omniscient beings cannot exist, and if there is randomness in the universe such that micro cause and effect chains are not real, then many of our choices in life may well be spontaneous, unpredictable, and of true free will.

 

[Lori_7]

This is easy guys. Just remove the time constraint. If god is not subject to it, which IMO it's reasonable to assume it's not, then god would indeed know our choices before we do.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is easy guys. Just remove the time constraint. If god is not subject to it, which IMO it's reasonable to assume it's not, then god would indeed know our choices before we do.

Riiight.
So you want to introduce yet another (unprovable) assumption.
It still doesn't take care of the problem.
If he knows what we're going to do then we have to do it.

 

[pywakit]

This is nuts. You argue the finer points of nothing.

The concept of god(s) is a man-made fantasy.

What is it you don't get?

How can you argue the authenticity of imagination?

Why don't you discuss the intricities of elves?

Ghosts. Banshees. Witches. Spirits. Peter Pan?

"I read a book, and I believe it's contents."

"Why?" someone asks.

"Because lot's of other people believe it, too. Anyway, God wrote that book."

"Oh. And you know this because .... ?"

"Because the book says so!"

"What if the book lied?"

"That's impossible!"

"Really. How do you arrive at that conclusion?"

"Because the book says it's the True Word of God! So it CAN'T be false!"

"Hmmm. Ok. Are these your only proofs?"

"No! Look how long it has lasted! 2000 years!"

"I see. And how does this 'evidence' confirm it's authenticity?"

"Because it couldn't have lasted this long if it was false!"

"Well, there you are. Case closed. God exists."

Can anyone here define insanity?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

As far as you're concerned you have free will, right?

I'd like to think so.
But that could merely be the way I'm destined to be.

Seeing as you would like to think you have free will, but as
yet are undecided, means you have free will.

Okay, they include that it must be true to be knowledge.

No, they include (among other things) truths.

Yet the evidence that it was fake must also have been there all along. If something is true it's true: regardless of belief.

We know it was fake, but our knowledge of it's fakery is not primariily based on the truth that it was fake.
But upon the full understanding of it's fakery, (which includes different aspects of knowledge) we can now conclude what the truth is.
That is how knowledge works.

Piltdown was never true. It was believed to be (erroneously).

You're right it was never true, but while it was believed to be true,
the belief was based on knowledge, albeit erronous, and second-hand.

Knowledge is not knowledge unless it's true.

In hindsight, yes, but without it, not necessarily.

Can true knowledge of a thing be known without understanding that thing?

Which has what to do with the question?

By true knowledge, I mean perfect knowledge, omnicscience.

If the future is knowable, and we therefore, cannot have free-will, what is
that knowledge based on, given the correct definition of knowledge?
If we dance to the tune of that knowledge, and our every action is predestined by that knowledge, then why call it knowledge, or omniscience?

the knowledge flows from the reality: reality is the way it is and will, and can only, be, and knowledge is aware of that).
It can't be otherwise.

Knowledge comes from our relationship with reality, resulting in experience, and percieved through our senses. Perfect knowledge is knowing things as
they are. If God is God, then He knows things perfectly, as opposed to imperfectly. He would then be in a position to know future events without having to dictate it.

If you're claiming that "If it helps your choice to believe that God does not exist, or belief in God is illogical, therefore irrational, then so be it" was your answer then you didn't actually answer the question:

I see what you mean now.

One more time:
If it is known (i.e. TRUE) that I will do X then, regardless of whatever I tell myself about "choosing" I will, inevitably, do X. The "choice" will not exist (or ever exist) since the outcome of that choice was known and true before I made the "choice". I could not "decide" to do Y, or Z, of F or H because it was, even before I "thought about" which to do, true that I would do X.

You were quite right, I did sidestep this point. The reason being, it has the
same old assumptions, i.e, knowledge=truth, and, omniscience is based on
knowledge without undertstanding, and is actually a predestined set of rules with regard to living entities.

You seem to miss the point that we can choose that which is untrue, as in the case of Piltdown Man, which renders your point, knowledge = truth, and, we dance to that tune, moot. The fact is, we can change our mind through our own volition, to suit ourselves despite the truth, and this is the power of our free will.

I'm sure you understand that knowledge, we deem "the truth", has to
be based on something which relates to us.
So my question is, why is having perfect knowledge, any different?

It comes back, angain to:
if god knows you'regoing to pick A how can you pick B?

You pick A because you want to pick A, and the reasons for your wanting
to pick is the knowledge that God posesses.

The question posed is NOT about god being illogical, or irrational, it's about the incompatibility of god's omniscience AND free will.
One or the other of them must go.

According to your understanding.
But why do you insist on sticking with it?
You now have food for thought, if you want it.

jan.

 

[pywakit]

Can anyone here define insanity?

Nope. Guess not.

So I guess making an extremely strong case for the bible(s) being written by men completely ignorant of the natural world/universe would just be ignored by those who 'choose' to believe.

Ok. I'll play for a minute.

Let's talk about that 'free choice' for a sec. Maybe you have already covered this and I missed it.

Just a few definitions of 'free'. All of the following were pulled (and edited) from a dictionary.

5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.

6. able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose.

7. clear of obstructions or obstacles.

9. exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, burdens, etc.

11. provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment.

12. given without consideration of a return or reward.

15. not joined to or in contact with something else.

16. acting without self-restraint.

21. not subject to special regulations, restrictions.

23. that may be used by or is open to all.

29. at liberty to enter and enjoy at will.

30. not subject to rules, set forms, etc.

36. without cost, payment, or charge.

Christians tell us that we can 'freely choose' between loving Jesus/God or not.

A gift of 'freedom of choice' granted to us by our loving, and wise Creator.

However, there is a slight penalty for 'not'.

This penalty, hardly worth mentioning, consists of being tortured beyond imagination for all eternity ... with no reprieve. Ever.

(Christians insist that is God's rule, not theirs, and since God can't be evil, neither can His rules be evil.)

This would be analogous to me walking up to you and putting a gun to your genitals.

Now I give you a choice. Love me or I blow your genitals off.

Technically, yes. You have a choice to make. Make either one you want.

No, don't ask. There are just the 2 choices. There is no 3rd, or 4th choice cuz I don't want to give you other options.

So? What's it gonna be? Love me?... Or suffer immediate excruciating pain?

From Wiki : (edited)

Coercion is the practice of compelling a person to act by employing threat of force.

Duress is to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]."

Intimidation is the act of making others do what one wants through fear.

Threat is an explicit or implicit message from ( an entity ) to someone that the ( entity ) will cause something bad to happen to the other, often except when certain demands are met

So someone explain to me why a sane person would choose eternal torture. Sounds pretty terrifying, doesn't it?

To call this choice free, is truly insane.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

No people I haven't suddenly turned to Jesus...

Well mayb this will help all to understan Gods definition of "free-will".!!!

Som peoples argument about Gods free-will seems to be based on the idea that God poofed "us" into existence but had no idea (at the time) what the out-com of his creaton woud be... an only after he created humans was he able to look into the future to discover the out-com of his creation... but the prollem wit that is... God is all-knowin... so even befor he put his creation plan into action he alredy knew who woud go to heaven an who woud go to hell.!!!

You see... God had an infinite number of creation designs to choose from... he coud have created humans in such a way that more woud choose Jesus an make it to heaven... or he coud have created us in such a way that fewer woud choose Jesus an mor woud go to hell.!!!

The instent God desided on the plan he chose to put into action... the fates was sealed for everbody in that creaton plan.!!!

The "free-will" God gave us... limits us to behave esactly the way his creaton plan was designed for us to behave.!!!

Edit:::

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
As far as you're concerned you have free will, right?

I'd like to think so.

Well thats interestin... do you thank you have "free-will".???

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...if there is randomness in the universe such that micro cause and effect chains are not real, then many of our choices in life may well be spontaneous, unpredictable, and of true free will.

So what woud that true free-will be... makin choises wit-out any mental consideraton... an bein surprized at the choise we made.???