The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system. Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology. Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false. Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God.  I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems, It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things. I didn't say anything about any rebuttals. Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work. I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.
Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work. Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science." Could be true yet my point has nothing to do with the godel's theorem being wrong or right, my point was about applying the theorem to theology which is just not possible. You have had this kind of problem before with entropy, applying it incorrectly because you didn't know the definition. As long as you continue to deny the definition of entropy as you have been, why would anybody care what you think about entropy? ?? Provide an example of what you mean. You have not only used entropy to ''prove'' god but also used entropy to ''disprove'' evolution. You were wrong in both of them as I pointed out, yet you don't acknowledge that. The law states any isolated system will increase its total entropy over time. An isolated system is defined as one without any outside energy input. Because the universe is an isolated system, the total disorder of the universe is always increasing. To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler. The earth is not a isolated system since large amounts of electromagnetic radiation reaches earth from the sun, visible light, infrared and ultraviolet mainly. Some is reflected back out into space. How many different things do you want to express about entropy? How many different ways do you want to say them? You can get out loads of books right on the Internet, and copy and paste all kinds of things about entropy. But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is a simplifying of complexity, perhaps you should start an entropy thread. Complexity is breaking down. Entropy is what is doing it. The time when complexity was the greatest is the beginning time. Throw cause and effect into the mix, and you prove that there is a God. As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory. Damn, you are truly good at avoiding my arguments. '' But as long as you don't state the way that the entropy things that you are talking about apply to the point that entropy is'' I have been trying to understand this sentence for a while now, still nothing. You have been wrong about entropy applying to the earth the same way that applies to the universe and you have been wrong in saying, intelligence can't form or (humans can't be more intelligent) because of entropy which I demonstrated to be wrong again because the earth is not an isolated system. ''As far as evolution goes, there are so many flaws in the evolution idea, that it should not even be considered a theory.'' That may be but then again, you have used entropy to try to disprove it and you were wrong, for the things mentioned before. I know it's hard to admit when you are wrong but you would look a bit less dishonest if you did. |
|
|
|
The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system. Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology. Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false. Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God. I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems, It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things. I didn't say anything about any rebuttals. Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work. I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.
Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work. Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science." Could be true yet my point has nothing to do with the godel's theorem being wrong or right, my point was about applying the theorem to theology which is just not possible. You have had this kind of problem before with entropy, applying it incorrectly because you didn't know the definition. As long as you continue to deny the definition of entropy as you have been, why would anybody care what you think about entropy? ?? Provide an example of what you mean. You have not only used entropy to ''prove'' god but also used entropy to ''disprove'' evolution. You were wrong in both of them as I pointed out, yet you don't acknowledge that. The law states any isolated system will increase its total entropy over time. An isolated system is defined as one without any outside energy input. Because the universe is an isolated system, the total disorder of the universe is always increasing. To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies. Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler. The earth is not a isolated system since large amounts of electromagnetic radiation reaches earth from the sun, visible light, infrared and ultraviolet mainly. Some is reflected back out into space. |
|
|
|
The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system. Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology. Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false. Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God. I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems, It's a difficult life, isn't it, not knowing many things. I didn't say anything about any rebuttals. Ah! You recognize a little of what you didn't say! Good work. I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology.
Ah! You recognize a little of what you DID say. Good work. Perhaps sometime you will move on to even greater work, by recognizing that, "Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science." Could be true yet my point has nothing to do with the godel's theorem being wrong or right, my point was about applying the theorem to theology which is just not possible. You have had this kind of problem before with entropy, applying it incorrectly because you didn't know the definition. |
|
|
|
The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system. Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology. Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false. Any rebuttal to Gödel's incompleteness theorem essentially nullifies all science. What does that leave us with? Religion... and God. I don't know if you have reading comprehension problems, I didn't say anything about any rebuttals. I said that you cannot apply godel's theorem to theology. |
|
|
|
The consensus response is that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic formal systems (e.g. mathematics). Theology is not a formal system. Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorem cannot be applied to theology. Of course religious people would apply it because that's what you do with every single ''proof'' of god which always turns out to be false. |
|
|
|
What is incest? There is more incest going on right now than there ever was at the time of Adam and Eve. Just think. If evolution happened, some mutated critter, who was just a tiny bit different than his fellows, mated with a non-mutated critter, to form children who carried the mutation only part way. Then that non-mutated critter died, and left his now imperfect mutation in his kids, so that they destroyed the mutating ability altogether. The whole idea of evolution is about as stupid as you can get. If it worked at all, we would have dozens, or hundreds, or thousands, or millions of different kinds of intelligent, reasoning, human-like species all around us. But we don't. We only have two: 1. People who believe in God, and; 2. People who don't believe in God. Dude, I have no phuking idea wtf you are on about there. All I can say is you really need to get out of your little bitcoin thread preaching pious world, take your reality blindfold off, take your fingers out of your ears, read up on some real science instead of bible bollocks....and please, for phucks sake, educate yourself on evolution.... Dude, he can't even answer questions about his loved bible, I asked him what happens with kids that die prematurely , do they go to heaven? What about kids that are not even born and he ignored it because he knows there is no good answer, he keeps posting the links which I debunked and he can't answer to that either, he usually just says, oh your links are self-debunking because again he can't answer. |
|
|
|
Yeah well I just like to post the links because I know it makes him mad and can't even respond to them, keep trolling, we wont convince him anyways. |
|
|
|
Is this even a question in 2017 ? Sure earth is flat
And why not, a very urgent issue Maybe all around us are deceiving and only the cosmonauts know the truth about the fact that the earth is still flat   Yes my friend, the Earth is still a flat and motionless plane. People weren't idiots for ten thousand years then suddenly woke up five hundred years ago no, they were put to sleep! You mean a few thousand years ago because it was already known the earth wasn't flat back then, not 500 years ago, that's a lie. |
|
|
|
There are a ton of ''viable'' hypothesis, so what? Why would you chose some hypothesis when there are already scientific theories that just work better. You are not proving anything here. Prove it. Prove that parapsychological research is explained better by theories not involving Orch OR and survival. Since the tests can be replicated it should be easy to prove that the mind cannot influence matter, as you claim. ''Theories that support this idea are: Orch OR and survival.'' Orch OR is not a theory, is a hypothesis and I don't see how it directly supports magic but whatever, again and you know this, there is no scientific theory about any of what you mention.
Not true, you are making shit up again. Orch OR is a theory, it makes testable predictions, thus it is a theory. While mainstream theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebral neurons increases, Orch-OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules. Survival is a hypothesis, it is useful in explaining the evidence of parapsychology, the two are related and have strong explanatory power. The same cannot be said for mainstream materialist theories. I posted my evidence, so where is yours? You cannot claim that your preferred theory is better without citing evidence for it. A review of Orch OR theory: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188Connecting QM to the survival of the personality and other parapsychological research: http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a14http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a23Tests that you refuse to address or even look at, yet you claim to have a better theory? Prove it! https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933 ''is a hypothesis that consciousness in the brain originates from processes inside neurons'' Again, not a theory. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188Hahahaha, Referred to by Deepak chopra, the guy who says each atom has consciousness?? The official ESA [Physics Dept.] stance is that this is not currently supported. http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21877 |
|
|
|
Yes I believe, because it was taught by my parents when I was a child until now and I am confident about what they teach.
Hmm... my case was also similar. My parents were quite religious and in my childhood days they would ask me to visit the nearby temples. But when I grew up, I realized the mistake in giving importance to religion over science. I gradually became agnostic and after a few years I became a hard core atheist. For the past 15-20 years, I have remained a hardcore atheist (my parents are still super-religious). That's the problem, you believe it because you were taught that way but you never really thought about it. You think, as a kid, that your parents know everything but that's not true and that's the biggest problem with religion. |
|
|
|
Yes I do believe in God! We never exest if no god! And I read that in the bible God exest With name,
I'm not challenging your beliefs. But the bible was created by people and written by people. It's not exactly gods word. Everything operates by cause and effect, which God operates. Even so, the Bible was set in place by God as His Word. Everything operates by cause and effect, which Zeus the magic unicorn operates. Even so the magic unicorn book was set in place by zeus as his word. |
|
|
|
No, I'm not a scientist. If there was enough evidence then we would have a scientific theory of your beliefs, there is no survival scientific theory for magic, as far as I know, if you show it to me then I will believe you.
Consciousness is fundamental, and it influences matter. Theories that support this idea are: Orch OR and survival. You claim what you have is evidence but it's not, all those tests are flawed, personal experiences and can't be repeated. Not true. Check out the tests and back up your claim with facts. Again if there was sufficient evidence scientists would have made a scientific theory, It already happened, I spoke with "protokol" about Orch OR and he could not deny that this theory is plausible. you are trying to convince people that magic is real in a bitcoin forum, off topic section in a thread that is called ''scientific proof of god'' You are desperate to feel validated by others so you can still believe in what you believe.
I am pointing out that survival is a viable hypothesis and that it debunks the philosophical materialism espoused by many atheists. Parapsychological research does not qualify as "magic", the results are easily explained by scientific theories like survival and Orch OR. There is a group of atheists who call themselves skeptics that display an almost religious need to deny this research. It’s just weird, but they’re very serious about it. It’s their version of religious intolerance. Evidence doesn’t magically disappear when it’s contested. It just means that there’s disagreement. There is plenty of evidence for psychic ability and it is a bald faced lie to say that there isn’t. There are a ton of ''viable'' hypothesis, so what? Why would you chose some hypothesis when there are already scientific theories that just work better. You are not proving anything here. ''Theories that support this idea are: Orch OR and survival.'' Orch OR is not a theory, is a hypothesis and I don't see how it directly supports magic but whatever, again and you know this, there is no scientific theory about any of what you mention. |
|
|
|
The Earth was engineered/built and the ruling scientific establishment are massive liars on an epic scale. There's a reason you need permission from your (((government))) to visit Antarctica, if you're looking for "scientific proof" I'd start there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_AntarcticaYou don't need permission from anyone to travel south. Try it. There is no imaginary navy blocking you.  The Antarctic Treaty System says you're full of shit, you can't go without permission from your government. The antarctic treaty system doesn't say that you can't. Show me the paragraph where it says that, you can't even read properly, mongoloid. |
|
|
|
The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. If you wave your hand through the empty air, are you not waving it through empty space as well? After all, the fact that the air is less dense than water, or less dense than the ground you are standing on, or less dense than a rock, or less dense than a chunk of iron, indicates that the air simply has more empty space between its molecules, right? Or suppose you become an astronaut and ride a rocket 100 miles up. Are you not in space, then? And is not space made out of nothing? Does "nothing" exist? After all, nothing is only the absence of something, like darkness is only the absence of light. So, does nothing really exist? You can't grab hold of nothing. You can't take it into your laboratory to measure its properties by chemically dissolving it. The only way you can analyze it is to analyze the relational properties of material or energy "things." Through the measurement of various material relationships, you can prove that nothing exists, even though you can't do anything with nothing at all, directly. Same with darkness. You analyze light. But you can't analyze or measure darkness. Yet you can prove darkness exists because you can measure aspects of light and other electromagnetic radiation. In a similar way, you can measure all kinds of aspects of the things that we know about the universe to prove that God exists, even though we can't grab hold of Him and chemically tear Him apart in the lab to find out what He is made of. - Cause and effect in everything in the universe is like programming. - Complexity in everything shows how great the programming is. - Entropy shows that there was a beginning. - Combining these 3 things, scientifically proves that God exists, although it doesn't prove much about what He is. Words don't always convey a meaning well. But you can look throughout this thread to find many words that explain how these 3 things prove the existence of God. Several links to explanations are here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1355109.msg14047133#msg14047133https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16803380#msg16803380. One other thing that yo will find is, those who want to prove that God doesn't exist, or that the 3 basics listed above don't prove that God doesn't exist, can't do so satisfactorily. Yet they continue to talk and act like they think that God doesn't exist. While their words don't express directly or clearly that they hate God, after a time, their whole group of words expresses it. Don't listen to badecker, he has been debunked several times before. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19455088#msg19455088https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19350390#msg19350390https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19357376#msg19357376https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19355289#msg19355289 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg19666684#msg19666684 |
|
|
|
... It is strange that even in the 21st century people believe in the theory of evolution. We can clone animals and humans. We know how to theoretically organize a big bang and create a universe. But we don't believe that we were created by more advanced people. Evolution is limited to DNA mutations. But someone created DNA. How do you know that someone created the DNA? Do you have ANY proof? Or this is one of your wipe ass assertions? Do you have ANY proof transformation of inanimate matter into living matter, incredibly complex DNA construction? No I don't. But this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter did create a bacteria with the synthetic DNA. To create DNA without the help of a computer is IMPOSSIBLE. So, what is your point? Just because you don't know how the first 100-200 genes were assembled, it does not mean someone created it. We know - God created  And how is it that you know? Perhaps you are a god yourself and you know things other humans don't? I would like to see what makes you to believe that god created anything or that god is actually real |
|
|
|
... It is strange that even in the 21st century people believe in the theory of evolution. We can clone animals and humans. We know how to theoretically organize a big bang and create a universe. But we don't believe that we were created by more advanced people. Evolution is limited to DNA mutations. But someone created DNA. How do you know that someone created the DNA? Do you have ANY proof? Or this is one of your wipe ass assertions? Do you have ANY proof transformation of inanimate matter into living matter, incredibly complex DNA construction? To create DNA without the help of a computer is IMPOSSIBLE. If god existed he would have transformed inanimate matter into living matter, wouldn't he? What's your point here exactly? Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters be full of living things, and let birds be in flight over the earth under the arch of heaven. Genesis 1:27 And God made man in his image, in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them. [1:1] With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful. [1:2] Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. What's your point? I can quote books too |
|
|
|
The big bang has evidence supporting it
what we call the universe is something that we have described with observational evidence,
Psychic powers have been described with observational evidence. Survival has evidence to support it. The universe is based on consciousness, this means that philosophical materialism is incorrect. You can claim they have but they haven't. We don't have a telekinesis theory as far as I know. If there was indeed observational evidence we would have discovered and studied long ago, we would have a ton of applications for it, we would have special schools teaching it, yet in real life there is nothing like that. Ghosts are also described with observational evidence (allegedly) do you believe in ghosts? Demons? Wake up to reality. I provided the evidence, you only provided your beliefs. Survival is a viable theory, same with Orch OR. Materialism is not viable. You did not explain the evidence using science or reason. For those who are new to all of this: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physicsNo, I'm not a scientist. If there was enough evidence then we would have a scientific theory of your beliefs, there is no survival scientific theory for magic, as far as I know, if you show it to me then I will believe you. You claim what you have is evidence but it's not, all those tests are flawed, personal experiences and can't be repeated. Again if there was sufficient evidence scientists would have made a scientific theory, you are trying to convince people that magic is real in a bitcoin forum, off topic section in a thread that is called ''scientific proof of god'' You are desperate to feel validated by others so you can still believe in what you believe. |
|
|
|
The big bang has evidence supporting it
what we call the universe is something that we have described with observational evidence,
Psychic powers have been described with observational evidence. Survival has evidence to support it. The universe is based on consciousness, this means that philosophical materialism is incorrect. You can claim they have but they haven't. We don't have a telekinesis theory as far as I know. If there was indeed observational evidence we would have discovered and studied long ago, we would have a ton of applications for it, we would have special schools teaching it, yet in real life there is nothing like that. Ghosts are also described with observational evidence (allegedly) do you believe in ghosts? Demons? Wake up to reality. |
|
|
|
Problem is, you can call it many many different things, there is no value in calling it god just like there is no value in calling it an alien from another dimension or a computer program simulation, all of those would be perfectly legitimate too then but what's the point, we don't have sufficient evidence for any of them and we may never have, at least in our lifetimes. I recognize the possibility of a intelligent creator, there is no evidence that something like that could exist but because there is also no evidence it does I simply don't believe it. The problem I have is people who actually say they KNOW or they have PROVED god existence when it's simply not true. I'm not an atheist and I really don't like to label anyone with silly tags.
By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false. Depending on the circumstances you need to adapt your language to get a message across. You usually can't hope to speak Spanish to a Chinese person. Using different terminology for the same thing is no different. And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence, and it might be enough to get everyone to move on with their lives and to assume that they've figured something out. But in the end, no amount of evidence will ever be conclusive and thus will never constitute as an ultimate proof. Anyone who claims to have proof of anything either uses the term loosely or doesn't know what they are talking about. No, you totally misunderstood what I said just like badecker didn't even attempt to understand because he knows I'm right. The point is that big bang was a name given to something that was observed, all the evidence led to that assumption and the assumption was simply called big bang and it could have been called anything. God on the other hand is not like that, we didn't observe him, we don't have evidence for him. The point is that god is like ghost or like demon or any other imaginary creature you can find, we never observed them, we don't have evidence for them, their descriptions are made up, big bang's description is not made up, is backed up by science and evidence so even if it was called big poop it would still have the same qualities and description that are real. There is no point in saying the creator of the universe is god when we don't know what god is, I think that's pretty simple to understand. The logic is circular, you are saying the creator of the universe is god and then you are describing god as the creator of the universe, no information is gained from this, you might as well call it holly poop, what do I care? If we don't know what it really is, then there is no point. The big bang is not something that was observed whatsoever... That statement makes the rest of your post largely irrelevant since it indicates that you don't even understand what the Big Bang really is about. And as far as misunderstandings go, it's obvious that you haven't gotten my point, since you're just rephrasing the same false statement that I've already addressed previously. You're also putting words into my mouth that I've never said or implied. No, the big bang has evidence that backs it up, god DOES NOT, neither have been observed, ton of things haven't been observed because it's impossible, the point again is that god is something made up and the big bang is not, whether you want to understand that or not it's up to you. The big bang is made up. It's just one hypothetical concept that could possibly explain the creation of the universe. There are various competing hypothesis other than the big bang as well and nobody knows which one is actually true. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that even if the big bang started our universe, we wouldn't know anything about what caused the big bang itself. Which is where the post I've made two posts earlier comes in, that clearly went way over your head. You don't know what you are talking about and you refuse to go back, sit down and try to figure it out instead of just rephrasing the same false statement yet another time. Let me say something first, I'm not claiming the big bang is exactly what happened but the big bang is not hypothetical is a theory (and you told me I don't know what I'm talking about, go figure lol) I'm not a big bang expert whatsoever nor I am a scientist but it is the most prevailing theory for the existence of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence There is a lot of evidence to support it, again I'm not claiming it is exactly what happened and it is true that we don't know what happened before the big bang. My point again was simply that even If I agree with badecker that the universe needs a creator, we don't know what the creator is and we don't gain anything by saying it's god and describing god as the creator of the universe, there is no information gained from that, there is no observational evidence for god.Look, I've repeatedly pointed out that I understand exactly where you're coming from and that you keep repeating it with different words. You can just keep saying the same stuff over and over, even though you know yourself that you're no scientist and thus don't really understand the details of the hypothesis of the big bang, or you can actually take some time to re-read my initial post attentively and actually try to get my point (which you currently clearly do not). The devil is in the details, and you've skimmed over my post so quickly that you've completely missed the point and based all of your further comments on your assumption of what you believe I've said. You can say it as many times as you want but the big bang is a scientific theory. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) Your first post was meaningless, ''And again, when it comes to "proof", it simply doesn't exist. You can not prove anything whatsoever. You can collect evidence'' So what? What if we can't prove anything 100% Science does as much as it can, that doesn't mean you should believe anything just because the other thing is not proved 100% either. That doesn't mean it's logical to believe god exists instead of the big bang simply because it wasn't proved to be 100% true. The big bang has evidence supporting it, god doesn't. ''By your argument, you could also say that there is no value in calling it "Big Bang", "the universe", "everything" or "empty space". Which is just simply false.'' No again, that is not my argument, my argument is that what we call the universe is something that we have described with observational evidence, like a glass, you observe the glass, you touch it, you measure it and then you define it (a hard, brittle, noncrystalline, more or less transparent substance produced by fusion, usually consisting of mutually dissolved silica and silicates that also contain soda and lime, as in the ordinary variety used for windows and bottles.) Now the glass has value because its description is real. The description of god is made up, we haven't observed things and then concluded ok, all these things together point to this thing which we are going to call god, we can't observe god, we can't touch it, measure it, etc etc. Badecker is simply giving god the description of the creator of the universe and then saying that the creator of the universe is god because god is the creator of the universe. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
