Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

Your opinion doesn't really matter and neither does mine. What matters is the final judgement and if I accept the truth or not. I know what I am but what are you?

If I die believing something that is not true then so do you! And so what? But if I die believing something that is true then I will rise again to life eternal and live again but where would you be???

You're basically saying here that your faith is a form of Pascal's wager. You have decided to believe that something is true because if you do and you're right then you win, but if you're wrong then you don't lose, because it doesn't matter anyway as there's no God or judgement or eternal life.

And it takes us back to that factor of truth, which is how we differ. So forget the religious claims for a moment, and lets address the principles of truth or falsehood. What is the underlying principle by which you take any claim and determine if it's correct or not? When presented with anyone saying "X is Y", how do you determine if X actually is Y, or if they are mistaken or lying and X is actually not Y at all.

[Viceroy63]

Your opinion doesn't really matter and neither does mine. What matters is the final judgement and if I accept the truth or not. I know what I am but what are you?

If I die believing something that is not true then so do you! And so what? But if I die believing something that is true then I will rise again to life eternal and live again but where would you be???

You're basically saying here that your faith is a form of Pascal's wager. You have decided to believe that something is true because if you do and you're right then you win, but if you're wrong then you don't lose, because it doesn't matter anyway as there's no God or judgement or eternal life.

And it takes us back to that factor of truth, which is how we differ. So forget the religious claims for a moment, and lets address the principles of truth or falsehood. What is the underlying principle by which you take any claim and determine if it's correct or not? When presented with anyone saying "X is Y", how do you determine if X actually is Y, or if they are mistaken or lying and X is actually not Y at all.

It is truly amazing how from my comment you only picked up on this one part to base a foundationless case. Allow me to repost the whole message and see if I can't drive it home, AGAIN!

Recognising himself as a semi literate bufoon may earn Warmonger divine grace , yet it also confirms his opinions as pretty worthless , careful who you get in bed with Viceroy

Your opinion doesn't really matter and neither does mine. What matters is the final judgement and if I accept the truth or not. I know what I am but what are you?

If I die believing something that is not true then so do you! And so what? But if I die believing something that is true then I will rise again to life eternal and live again but where would you be???

Would it even matter to anyone for all eternity that you even existed for a tiny unimportant life and time of no more then 100 years or so, in a life filled with painful sorrow and few moments of joy and absolutely no hope what so ever? Do you think that anyone will even remember you then in all of eternity? In an eternity fill with nothing but pure joy and love? Do you really think that anyone will even miss you then?

The old adage is true, that it's not what you know but who you know; And I know exactly with who I am in "bed" with and forever will be in an eternity that you may not even get to know because you simply don't want to. Repentance is a choice and Your eternal death penalty and condemnation is your choice and your fault not God's.

We are born, we live and then we die. And everything in between are just the choices that we make in life. And there are no second chances to make amends for our wrong Choices in life when the opportunities lay right in front of our faces. when we die we are simply the sum of our choices that we make in this life, and that is all that we are and that is what we get judged on, the choices that we make that make us who we are in return.

So You be careful yourself with whom you get into "bed" with because that is your choice.

You see, the point was not some kind of philosophical wager but about who you choose to climb into bed with. The choices that we make in life and where they lead us to, is the whole crux of this comment. But now that you bring it up...

No faith in any belief is blind and without some kind of evidence. The Bible claims are back up by History, Archeology, Science, Medicine and Prophecy. There is no evidence that proves that God does not exist. But there is literally tons of evidence that proves that God does exist and that his word is infallible. And that is why any intelligent person can trust in the claims of the Bible. That is why any reasonably intelligent person would believe in the God of the Bible.

[comic boy]

Recognising himself as a semi literate bufoon may earn Warmonger divine grace , yet it also confirms his opinions as pretty worthless , careful who you get in bed with Viceroy

Your opinion doesn't really matter and neither does mine. What matters is the final judgement and if I accept the truth or not. I know what I am but what are you?

If I die believing something that is not true then so do you! And so what? But if I die believing something that is true then I will rise again to life eternal and live again but where would you be???

Would it even matter to anyone for all eternity that you even existed for a tiny unimportant life and time of no more then 100 years or so, in a life filled with painful sorrow and few moments of joy and absolutely no hope what so ever? Do you think that anyone will even remember you then in all of eternity? In an eternity fill with nothing but pure joy and love? Do you really think that anyone will even miss you then?

The old adage is true, that it's not what you know but who you know; And I know exactly with who I am in "bed" with and forever will be in an eternity that you may not even get to know because you simply don't want to. Repentance is a choice and Your eternal death penalty and condemnation is your choice and your fault not God's.

We are born, we live and then we die. And everything in between are just the choices that we make in life. And there are no second chances to make amends for our wrong Choices in life when the opportunities lay right in front of our faces. when we die we are simply the sum of our choices that we make in this life, and that is all that we are and that is what we get judged on, the choices that we make that make us who we are in return.

So You be careful yourself with whom you get into "bed" with because that is your choice.

So to be concise , you need a philosophical crutch and I prefer to live in the present

[Haggis_McMutton]

Edit:

Meh, f*ck it, on second thought I can't be bothered to get into this discussion again.
Btw. huge respect for your stamina crispy.

[crispybits]

OK so you've kind of answered the question there indirectly Viceroy. To establish the truth value of the claim "X is Y", you would look for evidence that X is Y. That is entirely sensible and I have no problem with that at all.

So now we have to examine the principles of evidence. What kinds of evidence are good indicators when establishing the truth value of the statement X is Y? Remember we're staying away from religious statements specifically, I'm trying to keep this in very general terms in order to remove any bias in either direction from either of us.

It seems to me we have a few different possible types of evidence:

1) Statistical Evidence
2) Testimonial Evidence
3) Anecdotal Evidence

(feel free to add another category or two in if you don't think these are comprehensive by the way)

1) Statistical Evidence is evidence from confirmed and falsifiable sources gained from factual observations without any interpretation attached to them. For example "the car has many dents and scratches" is statistical evidence.
2) Testimonial Evidence is evidence from confirmed, quotable sources, who have established themselves as an authority on a subject, declaring a judgement about statistical evidence. For example "the car has many dents and scratches because the driver was incompetent and hit many different objects over a long time period" from a crash damage expert.
3) Anecdotal Evidence is evidence from unconfirmed sources, which if confirmed could come under either of the other two categories. For example "the car has many dents and scratches from hitting bollards in the supermarket car park" from the supermarket manager who has found the same colour paint on his bollards is Anecdotal Statistical Evidence, and "the car has many dents and scratches, I often see the driver staggering around when he gets out of the car like he's drunk" from a neighbour is Anecdotal Testimonial Evidence.

Still with me here Viceroy? Anything you want to add/amend in that or are we in agreement on this stuff?

[CreepersWiener]

Didn't Jesus say,"If you don't need a doctor then shut the f*ck up"?

[notyou2]

Didn't Jesus say,"If you don't need a doctor then shut the f*ck up"?

Yes, right after he rolled a large rock over his foot.

[crispybits]

OK so you've kind of answered the question there indirectly Viceroy. To establish the truth value of the claim "X is Y", you would look for evidence that X is Y. That is entirely sensible and I have no problem with that at all.

So now we have to examine the principles of evidence. What kinds of evidence are good indicators when establishing the truth value of the statement X is Y? Remember we're staying away from religious statements specifically, I'm trying to keep this in very general terms in order to remove any bias in either direction from either of us.

It seems to me we have a few different possible types of evidence:

1) Statistical Evidence
2) Testimonial Evidence
3) Anecdotal Evidence

(feel free to add another category or two in if you don't think these are comprehensive by the way)

1) Statistical Evidence is evidence from confirmed and falsifiable sources gained from factual observations without any interpretation attached to them. For example "the car has many dents and scratches" is statistical evidence.
2) Testimonial Evidence is evidence from confirmed, quotable sources, who have established themselves as an authority on a subject, declaring a judgement about statistical evidence. For example "the car has many dents and scratches because the driver was incompetent and hit many different objects over a long time period" from a crash damage expert.
3) Anecdotal Evidence is evidence from unconfirmed sources, which if confirmed could come under either of the other two categories. For example "the car has many dents and scratches from hitting bollards in the supermarket car park" from the supermarket manager who has found the same colour paint on his bollards is Anecdotal Statistical Evidence, and "the car has many dents and scratches, I often see the driver staggering around when he gets out of the car like he's drunk" from a neighbour is Anecdotal Testimonial Evidence.

Still with me here Viceroy? Anything you want to add/amend in that or are we in agreement on this stuff?

Viceroy? You seem to have gone very quiet in here? Are you OK? Have I said something you think is incorrect or that in some way demonstrates my infidel atheist principles without consideration for the divine truth here?

You say the Bible is evidence for God, obviously I disagree and all I'm trying to do is establish why you think that is true. To do that I have to understand how you believe that X is evidence for Y in a general sense.

[crispybits]

Taken from the f*ck religion thread to avoid off-topic

That and the fact that if you actually read about the God portrayed by the religions that often get used to justify discrimination (as in the Abrahamic ones), it is generally speaking a scumbag with less moral character than your average death row inmate.

Perhaps you can elaborate here as well. My Old Testament knowledge is fuzzy.

-Shape

I'd say that would be dragging this off-topic a little, if you do a search for "Post evidence for God here" thread and can be bothered to read however many pages that ran to you'll see most of the reasons

My personal favourite without going into the hundreds of other bits (and I don't want to derail this thread so I'll take any further discussion on this point to the evidence for God thread). God make Adam, Eve, and the garden of Eden, and tells them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They do, so God punishes them and every human for ever for doing so. But, if they had no knowledge of good and evil at the point where they chose to disobey, then punishing them and all of us ever since because they did not know right from wrong until after the "crime" seems a little backward (and disproportionate) no?

Well, God told them not to eat the fruit of the tree, thus directly disobeying him, and, in essence, not really trusting him. They at least had to know to some extent who God was, so it seems their condemnation is just. And their sinning against a perfect, all-powerful, all-whatever being. Think about stealing money from a convenient store and stealing money from the National Treasury or something. Similar crime, vastly different punishments, because you have to consider who you 'sinned' against.

-Shape

If you have a young child, a baby, and you know it doesn't understand the concepts of right and wrong, and it does something wrong, do you punish the child for doing wrong, or do you educate it?

Further to that, if an adult who knows the difference between right and wrong does wrong, do you punish all of it's friends, it's spouse and it's children and grandchildren ad infinitum for doing wrong, or does the person who does wrong hold the moral culpability for their action?

As I said there's many other examples (many stronger than this one) of this principle, this is just the one I find most amusing when people claim that God is an absolute moral arbiter. Another one may be advocating eternal punishment for finite crimes, and being so egotistical that the only truly unforgiveable crime is not loving and worshipping this "perfect being"

[PLAYER57832]

Taken from the f*ck religion thread to avoid off-topic

That and the fact that if you actually read about the God portrayed by the religions that often get used to justify discrimination (as in the Abrahamic ones), it is generally speaking a scumbag with less moral character than your average death row inmate.

Perhaps you can elaborate here as well. My Old Testament knowledge is fuzzy.

-Shape

I'd say that would be dragging this off-topic a little, if you do a search for "Post evidence for God here" thread and can be bothered to read however many pages that ran to you'll see most of the reasons

My personal favourite without going into the hundreds of other bits (and I don't want to derail this thread so I'll take any further discussion on this point to the evidence for God thread). God make Adam, Eve, and the garden of Eden, and tells them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They do, so God punishes them and every human for ever for doing so. But, if they had no knowledge of good and evil at the point where they chose to disobey, then punishing them and all of us ever since because they did not know right from wrong until after the "crime" seems a little backward (and disproportionate) no?

Well, God told them not to eat the fruit of the tree, thus directly disobeying him, and, in essence, not really trusting him. They at least had to know to some extent who God was, so it seems their condemnation is just. And their sinning against a perfect, all-powerful, all-whatever being. Think about stealing money from a convenient store and stealing money from the National Treasury or something. Similar crime, vastly different punishments, because you have to consider who you 'sinned' against.

-Shape

If you have a young child, a baby, and you know it doesn't understand the concepts of right and wrong, and it does something wrong, do you punish the child for doing wrong, or do you educate it?

Further to that, if an adult who knows the difference between right and wrong does wrong, do you punish all of it's friends, it's spouse and it's children and grandchildren ad infinitum for doing wrong, or does the person who does wrong hold the moral culpability for their action?

As I said there's many other examples (many stronger than this one) of this principle, this is just the one I find most amusing when people claim that God is an absolute moral arbiter. Another one may be advocating eternal punishment for finite crimes, and being so egotistical that the only truly unforgiveable crime is not loving and worshipping this "perfect being"

This is where comparing God to people fails.

The goal of a parent is to have an individual child who is responsible, moral, etc.


The goal of God for humanity is other... so while your ideas of punihsment and so forth loosely apply, they don't precisely.



It is significant that the tree was one of knowledge. Had they not partaken, humanity would not be what it is.

[tzor]

If you have a young child, a baby, and you know it doesn't understand the concepts of right and wrong, and it does something wrong, do you punish the child for doing wrong, or do you educate it?

A couple of points, especially as the whole story is a gigantic word play on Hebrew words.

The tree was not "right and wrong" but "good and evil." They knew what was right and what was wrong. They knew eating the fruit was wrong.

Perhaps they might not have realized that the serpent was "evil" because they did not know what evil was.

Perhaps they might therefore have believed the twisted words that they would become "like god" by the knowledge within the fruit.

Mitigating circumstances, I'll grant you, but aside from the fact that they merely discovered they were naked (knowledge and naked are similar in Hebrew) their only practical punishment was that farming was going to be a real pain in the ass and giving birth (huh, what's that probably thought eve who hasn't gotten pregnant so far in the story) was going to also be painful.

Remember, they were only kicked out of the garden because the other heavenly hosts thought they would be a repeat offender and steal from the tree of "life" and live forever, like the heavenly hosts.

[crispybits]

So the whole doctrine that almost every christian church is based on, that you can live a perfect life but you must still accept God to be saved, that's based on what exactly if not that original sin by Eve?

[tzor]

So the whole doctrine that almost every christian church is based on, that you can live a perfect life but you must still accept God to be saved, that's based on what exactly if not that original sin by Eve?

"Original Sin" is the result, not the punishment, of obtaining the knowledge of good and evil. It's why you can't live a perfect life. Note: I'm a Catholic, and so I don't believe in OSAS. The notion of "original sin" and "divine mercy" is a complex issue that probably deserves its own thread, but I doubt anyone is interested here.

[john9blue]

crispy are you going on with your bullshit "judging god by human moral standards" argument again? i thought we talked about this?

[jonesthecurl]

Well, apparently he's allowed to judge us by his. Turn around is fair play.

[crispybits]

Also, the religious are the ones contending that there is some absolute moral truth, and that this is given to us by God. Using the same source they use for judging this absolute morality, and then asking if God fits this absolute moral code, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Or are there more than one absolute moral truths? In which case there is no absolute moral truth because it all becomes relative and the religious argument collapses again from a different angle.

Provide a reasonable argument why there can be different standards for God as for us when there is only one absolute standard and I'l stop this line of reasoning. But nobody has, all anybody ahs done is plead a special exception for the thing they cannot even prove is there, much the same as they plead a special exception on the "everything must have been created, except for God..." argument.

[daddy1gringo]

I'm still using an on-screen keyboard, so this will be brief. My standard answer to objections as to why God can do things forbidden to us, like judge or demand to be praised is: "You're absolutely right. Who does he think he is? God? Oh, wait..."

[Symmetry]

I'm still using an on-screen keyboard, so this will be brief. My standard answer to objections as to why God can do things forbidden to us, like judge or demand to be praised is: "You're absolutely right. Who does he think he is? God? Oh, wait..."

What makes you thinks God is male?

[john9blue]

Also, the religious are the ones contending that there is some absolute moral truth, and that this is given to us by God. Using the same source they use for judging this absolute morality, and then asking if God fits this absolute moral code, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Or are there more than one absolute moral truths? In which case there is no absolute moral truth because it all becomes relative and the religious argument collapses again from a different angle.

Provide a reasonable argument why there can be different standards for God as for us when there is only one absolute standard and I'l stop this line of reasoning. But nobody has, all anybody ahs done is plead a special exception for the thing they cannot even prove is there, much the same as they plead a special exception on the "everything must have been created, except for God..." argument.

maybe... sounds crazy, but... maybe different beings should have different moral expectations?

there's a reason we don't punish animals for murdering each other. hell, we don't even punish kids as harshly as we punish adults for identical crimes.

[notyou2]

Also, the religious are the ones contending that there is some absolute moral truth, and that this is given to us by God. Using the same source they use for judging this absolute morality, and then asking if God fits this absolute moral code, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Or are there more than one absolute moral truths? In which case there is no absolute moral truth because it all becomes relative and the religious argument collapses again from a different angle.

Provide a reasonable argument why there can be different standards for God as for us when there is only one absolute standard and I'l stop this line of reasoning. But nobody has, all anybody ahs done is plead a special exception for the thing they cannot even prove is there, much the same as they plead a special exception on the "everything must have been created, except for God..." argument.

I'm pretty sure we got the absolute moral truthiness gene from the chimps. Well, most of us did, the others got it from snakes.

[BigBallinStalin]

maybe... sounds crazy, but... maybe different beings should have different moral expectations?

there's a reason we don't punish animals for murdering each other. hell, we don't even punish kids as harshly as we punish adults for identical crimes.

Well, you're using a loaded term: "murder." There is no Justice in the non-human 'Kingdom', so the claim of murder, i.e. unjustified killing, can't be established since the criteria (justice, to name one) are lacking.

Of course, [insert the debate on natural/universal rights and how they apply to animals in terms of consciousness and what have you.]

[PLAYER57832]

Also, the religious are the ones contending that there is some absolute moral truth, and that this is given to us by God. Using the same source they use for judging this absolute morality, and then asking if God fits this absolute moral code, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

It makes as much sense as saying that any rule OK for an adult should be OK for a 2 year old child.

Or are there more than one absolute moral truths? In which case there is no absolute moral truth because it all becomes relative and the religious argument collapses again from a different angle.

Provide a reasonable argument why there can be different standards for God as for us when there is only one absolute standard and I'l stop this line of reasoning. But nobody has, all anybody ahs done is plead a special exception for the thing they cannot even prove is there, much the same as they plead a special exception on the "everything must have been created, except for God..." argument.

Moral truth and absolute truths are 2 different things. I would say it is fundamental to Christianity that God exists, created the universe, etc.

Most other things are not truly "absolute truths" or "absolute moral truths". The few exceptions permeat societies, are not solely held by Christianity. Even most of what we would consider "absolutes" are exepted in various specific circumstances.
To pick a repugnant example, there is a story in the Bible about a man who lies with his daughters to give them children. Absolutely against both Judaic and Christian law. Yet... if there were a nuclear holocaust and no other men were around, would that moral "absolute" stay?

When it comes to God versus man, a lot of the rules are about "this is God's choice, not humanities' choice". This is a big part of why Christ replaces a long series of rules with 2 rules... "love thy God and love thy neighbor as thyself. Those other things were guidelines, rules for people who wanted rules they could follow... but they wound up tying people up in trivialities. Its similar to changes parents go through when kids grow. Ultimately, in one sense, the goals and even the "rules are really the same...that is, the real "rules" for each age are to "stay safe", "be 'good' [per the standards of the soceiety].. etc. BUT, how those goals are communicated to a 5 year old will differ, because their ability to understand and circumstancesdiffer so widely.

[daddy1gringo]

maybe... sounds crazy, but... maybe different beings should have different moral expectations?

there's a reason we don't punish animals for murdering each other. hell, we don't even punish kids as harshly as we punish adults for identical crimes.

Well, you're using a loaded term: "murder." There is no Justice in the non-human 'Kingdom', so the claim of murder, i.e. unjustified killing, can't be established since the criteria (justice, to name one) are lacking.

I think that was his point.

EDIT: Mine too, actually:

My standard answer to objections as to why God can do things forbidden to us, like judge or demand to be praised is: "You're absolutely right. Who does he think he is? God? Oh, wait..."

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, good call. I misread j9b's stance, so I probably support his position--whatever that may be when fully clarified.

Still, I'ma gonna reject your Appeal to God's Morality argument because of the equally justifiable Appeal to the Other-'God's' Morality problem and because of the Euthyphro dilemma.

[crispybits]

Also, the religious are the ones contending that there is some absolute moral truth, and that this is given to us by God. Using the same source they use for judging this absolute morality, and then asking if God fits this absolute moral code, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

It makes as much sense as saying that any rule OK for an adult should be OK for a 2 year old child.

I'm not talking about the rules, I'm talking about the principles behind those rules. You would tell an adult to be nice to others in a different way to the way you would tell a 2 year old to play nice with his 2 year old friends, but the basic principle underlying both is "be nice to other people". If the underlying message is one of love, respect, tolerance and whatnot then surely we should expect God to also apply those principles to his actions. There are many examples where the God of the bible (both new and old testament) acts contrary to those underlying principles.

For one among very many examples, Jesus is all about mercy most of the time, but then also threatens eternal excommunication/torment (depending on the interpretation of certain biblical verses) to those that don't follow his way and accept him/his Dad as subjects of worship. (Matthew 10:33 "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." - so deny Jesus as your saviour and you're not getting into our special sky club).

Moral truth and absolute truths are 2 different things. I would say it is fundamental to Christianity that God exists, created the universe, etc.

Most other things are not truly "absolute truths" or "absolute moral truths". The few exceptions permeat societies, are not solely held by Christianity. Even most of what we would consider "absolutes" are exepted in various specific circumstances.
To pick a repugnant example, there is a story in the Bible about a man who lies with his daughters to give them children. Absolutely against both Judaic and Christian law. Yet... if there were a nuclear holocaust and no other men were around, would that moral "absolute" stay?

When it comes to God versus man, a lot of the rules are about "this is God's choice, not humanities' choice". This is a big part of why Christ replaces a long series of rules with 2 rules... "love thy God and love thy neighbor as thyself. Those other things were guidelines, rules for people who wanted rules they could follow... but they wound up tying people up in trivialities. Its similar to changes parents go through when kids grow. Ultimately, in one sense, the goals and even the "rules are really the same...that is, the real "rules" for each age are to "stay safe", "be 'good' [per the standards of the soceiety].. etc. BUT, how those goals are communicated to a 5 year old will differ, because their ability to understand and circumstancesdiffer so widely.

If a man and his 2 daughters were the only ones left alive, then the social contract can be changed with the agreement of the parties to better suit the new "society". It happens on a gradual and larger scale all the time. If the man drugged and raped his daughters then I think I would probably still term that an immoral act even if it saved the human race in the future (because the individual's health must be considered as well as that of the society). If the daughters voluntarily decided to have kids with their Dad then probably not so bad at all.

On the second point, firstly Christ said quite clearly in the sermon on the mount that he was not there to change any of the rules already in place, or to remove them from the rulebook. But even then if we say that those two rules "love God and love thy neighbour" then God comes up short. An all powerful, all loving being would never condemn one of his creations to eternal excommunication/torment because he built it in such a way that meant that for whatever reason (either intellectual/emotional or societal/cultural) they could not believe in him and genuinely love him. As mentioned in another post on here or the gay marriage thread, love is not a choice it's an emotional response (and I'll requote that argument here if you want to go over it)

maybe... sounds crazy, but... maybe different beings should have different moral expectations?

there's a reason we don't punish animals for murdering each other. hell, we don't even punish kids as harshly as we punish adults for identical crimes.

OK, so as a human being, with finite capability for different actions, and with a finite capacity for love, compassion and mercy, I am taught that I must: (to quote Matthew 5:43-48)

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

And yet an all powerful being, with an infinite capability to do anything, and with an infinite capacity for love, compassion and mercy isn't going to do the same? Will he accept non-believers into heaven? Will he do good to those that hate him?



Ah no, I remember now, he'll condemn us all to eternal excommunication/torment. OK then.... guess he's still a scumbag.