CreateDebate


Debate Info

51
16
Yes No
Debate Score:67
Arguments:52
Total Votes:91
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (29)
 
 No (15)

Debate Creator

Champybeat(9) pic



Does God exist?

Yes

Side Score: 51
VS.

No

Side Score: 16

Yes. Too many Atheists aren't really looking, or not looking in the right place.

https://www.facebook.com/The-Beast-is-Strong-in-This-One-273041423117102/

Side: Yes
2 points

1. laws of logic:

The laws of logic are evidence for God. For they are conceptual, transcendent, logical, and work at all times in places - they are also immaterial. In a materialistic worldview, these laws cannot possibly exist.

2. uniformity in nature:

The laws of logic and nature continue to work in an orderly, regular way. But why must the universe ‘obey’ these laws at times? What determines it to be a logical and orderly universe.

3. fine-tuning:

The universe is perfectly fine tuned for planets, stars, and life. (E.g., if the constant of gravity was different by 1 in 10 to the 60th power, stars, planets and life would not exist).

4. cosmological argument:

The universe had a beginning and therefore has a cause; since the universe is caused, and consists of time, space, and matter, the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial. It also must be personal, and unbelievably powerful - the Creator - God.

5. complexity of life:

The complexity of organisms is mind-boggling. But observe even a ‘simple’ cell. It consists of many, many organelles within it that must work for it to be useful. The cell is intracately made, and extremely complex. We also observe layer upon layer of explicitly on even the smallest of creatures (e.g., lightning bugs, worms, lizards).

6. information in DNA:

DNA contains instructions to build life. The materialist must explain how immaterial information could possibly come about by physical, natural processes alone.

7. origin of life:

Abiogenesis (like the multiverse) has not a shred of empirical evidence. We have only observed life originate from life. And so therefore, I believe all life comes from one who is existence - the I AM - who has life in himself.

8. Moral aegument:

If God does not exist, evil does not exist - it is a mere opinion in subjectivism (which no one wants to live in a world of relativism).

9. ontological argument:

1. It is possible a maximally great being exists.

2. It thefore exists in some possible world.

3. For it to be maximally great, it must exist in all possible worlds.

4. It therefore exists in the actual world.

5. God therefore exists.

10. Our craving for the divine:

When there is a desire for sex, there is sex. When there is a desire for food, there is food. When there is a desire for happiness and purpose, indeed, it can be found. But we can only have an objective meaning and purpose in life if we were designed by the Divine. And when we put our faith in the Christ and his saving work (his death and resurrection) to save us from our sins, we are saved from the eternal wrath of the Almighty, and are forgiven of our sins; we are saved by the grace of God alone through faith alone in the Christ alone (the Son of God). And in Christ, we find purpose. For the chief end of man is to glorify God but enjoying him forever. Through, Christ we can find the supreme treasure of the universe - God himself - and be satisfied in him forever.

Side: Yes
2 points

Great arguments!!! I have not read something that good in a while God bless you!

(PS: im definitively copying and saving these arguents for futur use!)

Side: Yes
1 point

The laws of logic are evidence for God.

It is not logical to conclude there is a magical deity who lives in the sky without empirical, demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable proof. Hence, the laws of logic are not evidence for God any more than they are evidence for Bananaman.

Side: No
6 points

https://www.facebook.com/The-Beast-is-Strong-in-This-One-273041423117102/

Nomenclature commences to put blindfold on and sticks fingers in ears.

Side: Yes
Champybeat(9) Disputed
2 points

1. I must address, I do not believe in a deity who lives merely in the sky. I believe in an immaterial God who is omnipresent, but is also beyond space/time - i.e., transcendent - as he created space and time (and is therefore spaceless and timeless).

2.you dodge the assertion: you still fail to account for the immaterial laws of logic in a naturalistic worldview. The laws of logic are evidence for God, because he alone offers us a foundation for them.

3. We are referring to a Creator in general. But I do accept the existence of the Christian, Triune God. And the point was, such immaterial entities point to a logical, immaterial Lawgiver of the laws - the Creator God.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1380) Clarified
1 point

So you believe material is magical, having the power to bring forth living things?

Side: Yes
cruzaders(325) Disputed
1 point

I dont think you actually understood his point about logic

Side: Yes
AveSatanas(4443) Disputed
-1 points

1. laws of logic:

The laws of logic are evidence for God. For they are conceptual, transcendent, logical, and work at all times in places - they are also immaterial. In a materialistic worldview, these laws cannot possibly exist.

No theyre not. Theyre just human expressions of consistent or inconsistent concepts or manifestations of reality.

According to your logic in a naturalistic or materialistic worldview there can be no imaginary concepts and ideas. Which is ridiculous. We know our brains can produce immaterial concepts and our language allows us to express those ideas to other conscious minds. That phenomena is explained by a naturalistic worldview. That is hardly proof of god.

2. uniformity in nature:

The laws of logic and nature continue to work in an orderly, regular way. But why must the universe ‘obey’ these laws at times? What determines it to be a logical and orderly universe.

Youre posing this as an open question. Inserting god into the answer slot is not an answer unless you can prove how he created such laws.

3. fine-tuning:

The universe is perfectly fine tuned for planets, stars, and life. (E.g., if the constant of gravity was different by 1 in 10 to the 60th power, stars, planets and life would not exist)

Again, youre describing a state of reality. (A) as proof of god (B). But youre not proving how youre getting B from A or A from B at all.

4. cosmological argument:

Classic

The universe had a beginning and therefore has a cause;

We dont know this. The beginning of the universe is a giant question mark for humanity. We dont even know if there was a "beginning". So your argument is already resting on a giant assumption.

since the universe is caused, and consists of time, space, and matter, the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial.

Why? That doesnt logically follow at all. or at least you havent demonstrated why it does

It also must be personal, and unbelievably powerful - the Creator - God.

Woah and you totally didnt demonstrate that at all. Why does it have to be personal?? We can agree on the powerful part. But you havent demonstrated why the cause of the universe has to be timeless, timeless, imatterial (or how those are even coherent concepts).

That was just a series of assumptions resting upon other assumptions.

6. information in DNA:

DNA contains instructions to build life. The materialist must explain how immaterial information could possibly come about by physical, natural processes alone.

Its not immaterial information. Youre misusing the word information here. When a geneticist uses the word information theyre using it to describe processes and chemical compound transfer.

7. origin of life:

Abiogenesis (like the multiverse) has not a shred of empirical evidence. We have only observed life originate from life. And so therefore, I believe all life comes from one who is existence - the I AM - who has life in himself.

Abiogenesis describes a multitude of hypotheses about how life could have originated. You using the word in this way kind of highlights your ignorance of it. And then you go on to admit its just a belief you have. Id call abiogenesis a series of educated guesses, or scientific hypotheses, which i still hold to be of more value than your silly religion.

8. Moral aegument:

If God does not exist, evil does not exist - it is a mere opinion in subjectivism (which no one wants to live in a world of relativism).

Bullshit. We can have universally agreed upon rights and wrongs.

9. ontological argument:

1. It is possible a maximally great being exists.

2. It thefore exists in some possible world.

3. For it to be maximally great, it must exist in all possible worlds.

4. It therefore exists in the actual world.

5. God therefore exists.

This is the most ridiculous argument in the history of christian apologetics. You cant just word game a being into physical reality. Youre basically just defining god into existence with the term "maximally great". which is just a bullshit sleazy term created specifically for use in this argument alone. You cant just make a word and then have that word mean "anything that is this exists in reality for realz" and then it suddenly becomes so.

This guy has a phD in philosophy and goes in depth into the modal ontological argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt2dywK1RZs

10. Our craving for the divine:

Pfft what?

When there is a desire for sex, there is sex. When there is a desire for food, there is food. When there is a desire for happiness and purpose, indeed, it can be found. But we can only have an objective meaning and purpose in life if we were designed by the Divine. And when we put our faith in the Christ and his saving work (his death and resurrection) to save us from our sins, we are saved from the eternal wrath of the Almighty, and are forgiven of our sins; we are saved by the grace of God alone through faith alone in the Christ alone (the Son of God). And in Christ, we find purpose. For the chief end of man is to glorify God but enjoying him forever. Through, Christ we can find the supreme treasure of the universe - God himself - and be satisfied in him forever.

That turned into incoherent rambling. There are tons of people who find full satisfaction in life doing things in the real world. This "argument" is just an appeal to some ethereal concept you made up.

Side: No
Champybeat(9) Disputed
1 point

Greetings.

1. You did not address their existence. Apart from God, we have no foundation for them existing - for they are conceptual. Science cannot prove logic; it presumes it. Apart from an immaterial Creator, we have no reason to believe these laws. Also, humans did not create them; we ‘discovered’ them. Before humans came into existence, the sun could not exist and exist at the same time (this would violate the law of non-contradiction).

The very definition of a materialistic universe is that all that exists is ultimately physical - therefore the immaterial cannot exist. I find it strange that you are asserting the immaterial do exist in a materialistic universe - most would disagree with you (e.g., as for ideas, many believe they are ultimately physical, as they are reactions, for physical or chemical reasons, inside our brain). But the laws of logic are not limited inside our skull (otherwise they would be subjective to everyone). Whether you are at the center of the Milky Way galaxy, or in London, England, the laws of logic exist (contradictions cannot exist anywhere, and there is no ‘middle ground’ for a yes/no question).

2. You missed the point. We believe in uniformity, but have no foundation for doing so. We just accept our brains that evolved naturally are trustworthy. Apart from God, we have no reason to think the universe should have to be regular, logical, and orderly at all times.

God did not create the laws of logic, because he has always been a logical Creator. Rather, when we observe the laws of logic and uniformity in our universe, we see reflections of the hand of a logical Lawgiver and Creator who made all reality that is secondary (with him being primary reality).

3. The probability of the universe being fine-tuned for such things is impossible (see numbers I gave). These constants which are perfectly fine tuned (which generally all physicists agree the universe is fine tuned [e.g. Stephen Hawking]). They point to a Designer - I.e., a Fine-Tuner.

4. Most cosmologists would agree the Big Bang is when time and space began - and matter. And so, I believe it is very reasonable to believe the cause would not consist of time, space and matter (immaterial, spaceless, and timeless). And I believe we should have a cause who is uncaused; who is necessary rather than contingent - one who is existence, and prime reality (God). As for personal, the personal Creator could decide to create the universe, fine-tune it, create life, etc. if it was impersonal, it would never make such a decision to cause the universe. And if it did bring the universe into existence, since it can’t consciously decide that, it would need something else to cause it (and we fall into a ‘turtles all the way down”).

5. information in DNA:

You are not addressing anything. The DNA molecule contains instructions to build life. It carries information and meaning - information that can give a seal whiskers, or give me green eyes. But what gave it these instructions and meaning and information in the first place?

6. Abiogenesis:

Concerning abiogenesis, with respect, all you did was throw in a few ad hominem and baseless assertions (as for the baseless assertions, this is primarily what you have done throughout your post). We observe the law of biogenesis (life comes from life). The burden of proof lies on the one who claims life can come from non-life. This is pure speculation.

7. Morals:

Yes! We do generally agree. But this still makes it an opinion apart from God. For example, Nazi Gernamy believed it was good to exterminate Jews. But what transcendent laws are we to look to for us Americans to decide they were absolutely wrong? None. It is up to the subject (human) to decide what is right/wrong in subjectivism.

8. No, you cannot just throw in any word. For example, if we said ‘since the idea of a maximally great island exists, it must exist’. But it can’t exist, because you could always make it ‘better’. For example, what if you added one more fish, or a grain of sand? But concerning God, you cannot make him any better; for he is infinite in his attributes.

10. I do not believe so. Apart from God, we have no meaning ultimately. Sure, claim you can find it, but apart from a Creator, we will ultimately stop existing (remembering nothing that happened to us), and there is no hope (hope for life, and no hope for justice [‘evil’ will never be judged (though the word is an opinion apart from God anyways)]). Purpose is subjective apart from God, as someone could purpose in anything that suited them (whether it be giving to the poor, or capturing children to rape and murder them - which is not objectively evil in atheism, since we are mere chemical reactions dancing to our DNA [as Richard Dawkins puts it]).

Brayden

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1380) Clarified
1 point

9. ontological argument:

1. It is possible a maximally great being exists.

2. It thefore exists in some possible world.

3. For it to be maximally great, it must exist in all possible worlds.

4. It therefore exists in the actual world.

5. God therefore exists.

AviSatan's states:

This is the most ridiculous argument in the history of christian apologetics. You cant just word game a being into physical reality. Youre basically just defining god into existence with the term "maximally great". which is just a bullshit sleazy term created specifically for use in this argument alone. You cant just make a word and then have that word mean "anything that is this exists in reality for realz" and then it suddenly becomes so.

This guy has a phD in philosophy and goes in depth into the modal ontological argument:

AviSatan's is claiming to have knowledge of all possible realities as the only way you can deny the logic of the Ontological method is to say that it is not possible for God to be real. If you say that, you are claiming to know that in all possible realities, there is no God. So you are claiming to know something you cannot possibly know as your experience is limited to one reality...unless of course you create a different reality in your mind and still say in that reality it is not possible for God to be real. In reality, the person who follows these lines of thinking are making fools of themselves and running out of time before they meet God.

Side: Yes

something exists somewhere

believers call it god

atheists call it energy

its the same thing

just that believers understand by emotion and atheist follow by logic.

Side: Yes
Champybeat(9) Disputed
1 point

With respect, no, they are not the same thing. God created energy. Energy wears down over time, and it has no creative power (it is not personal and cannot consiously decide to make a universe.

Side: Yes
boredtodeath(16) Clarified
1 point

i said they call it , that is they define the word energy to have a different meaning than the one defined by us in the scientific terms.

i mean to imply that all are referring to one and the same thing

just their way of reference is different.

by saying atheists call it energy.

i imply that they refer to that thing which is the source of life

by using scientific terms

not the word to word definition of energy.

Side: Yes
0 points

All definitions in bold are courtesy of Merriam-Webster...

Reality all be like

"the quality or state of being real"

Real be like

"not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory"

"having objective independent existence"

"fundamental, essential"

"occurring or existing in actuality"

Actuality about that

"the quality or state of being actual"

"something that is actual :fact, reality"

Actual happens to happen a

"existing or occurring at the time"

"not false or apparent"

"existing in fact or reality"

Then we gotta go back to reality.

"The quality or state of being real"

What is quality?

"peculiar and essential character"

"an inherent feature"

"a distinguishing attribute"

What a state?

"mode or condition of being"

So what is reality? Can you figure it out? Sure you can. Or can you?

So what is supreme?

"highest in rank or authority"

"highest in degree or quality"

"ultimate, final"

Final isa wha?

"not to be altered or undone"

"of or relating to the ultimate purpose or result of a process"

then by now you gotta know ultimate

"the best or most extreme of its kind"

"basic, fundamental"

"original"

"incapable of further analysis, division, or separation"

What is fundamental?

"serving as an original or generating source :primary"

"serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function :basic"

"of central importance :principal"

Basic?

"of, relating to, or forming the base or essence"

"constituting or serving as the basis or starting point"

Principal?

"most important, consequential, or influential"

So what do you think I mean when I'm talking about The Ultimate Reality? The Supreme Reality? The Supreme and Ultimate Reality?

What is being?

"the quality or state of having existence"

"the qualities that constitute an existent thing :essence"

"something that actually exists"

"the totality of existing things"

Supreme Being?

What am I talking about?

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. What is it that I mean? Isn't it obvious?

Definition of god

"1 capitalized :the supreme or ultimate reality"

So what does it mean to say, "I do not believe in God" or "I do not know if there is God" or "There is no God"? What does it mean to say, "I believe in God".

I believe in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. Surely this is greater than I or anyone.

Humble yourself before God.

Who's your daddy?

Side: Yes
1 point

Provide evidence for the existence of a god. Then provide evidence for the existence of your god. Then I'll be willing to treat this conversation seriously.

Side: No
NowASaint(1380) Clarified
1 point

A god is a created thing which is idolized by a person. For example, your mind is a created thing which you idolize. In your mind, you have erected a mental block wall behind which you feel you are safe from God's scrutiny. You think that as long as you can make yourself believe there is no God, you are safe from punishment against your sins.

Your own existence is evidence of your Creator, but you probably have not even decided if you are real; have you?

Side: Yes
Champybeat(9) Disputed
0 points

Evidence was given on the other side, sir, by Champybeat (i.e., me). We can indeed discuss the existence of the Triune God of Christianity, but first we must look to see if the evidence points to a Creator.

Side: Yes

(Before I start, let me clarify. I am neither 'yes' or 'no' to the does-God-exist debate. However, since I've been forced to be on the defensive from people, I'm going with 'no' here.)

'God' has different meanings for everyone. So one has to consider this: what do you mean by 'God'? For example, 'God' might be a source of comfort for one, or someone/something to be worshipped and an explanation for what happens to another.

People often talk about 'finding God'. But that could mean different things. Perhaps they were searching for answers and found them in God's word. Or perhaps they need comfort and faith brought that.

You also have to consider how religion and people's belief work. In Greek mythology, to name one, Zeus was the god of lightning and thunder. He was the one who made storms and the like. And the Greeks used him as an explanation for natural phenomena.

This is present in other cultures too, using supernatural or mythological explanations for things. Another example is Harry Houdini. People believed he used supernatural means to create his famous magic acts. (He often protested this view, however, stating his means were entirely natural.)

People tend to use God or other deities to explain things. (I tend to think of supernatural things myself when my door creaks mysteriously, instead of it just being a simple draft.)

Also- consider the fact that the Old Testament was written over 2,000 years ago, and that they might have been made by insane people. We don't have time machines and we cannot verify the account.

And there's the fact that religions tend to fluctuate. Greek mythology was widespread for a good 1,000 years, and Hinduism has survived many years. Christianity might be dead in a century and replaced with another religion.

But one thing is true: the belief in God and Jesus Christ has been present and will most likely continue to be present for years to come. They have values that are reflected in everyday situations. And they will continue to.

Side: No
Champybeat(9) Disputed
1 point

By ‘God’ I believe in a transcendent being who is the Creator of the universe, sent his Son to die on the cross and be resurrected so if we put our faith in him and his saving work we will be forgiven of our sins, rescued from God’s wrath, and enjoy God now and forever, bringing glory to him.

And I do believe there is evidence for a Creator God (perhaps you could give it thought, which I presented on the ‘pro-side’).

We need to follow the evidence where it leads; let us be careful to not let naturalistic processes become our ‘god of the gaps’. (E.g., I believe the evidence points toward God concerning the laws of logic, life and it’s origin and complexity, origin and uniformity of universe, etc.).

And I believe there is evidence specifically for Christianity (e.g., most historians agree [Christian and secular] that there was a man called ‘Jesus of Nazareth’, who was crucified by the sentence of Ponius Pilate of the Roman empire, buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimetha, and his disciples claimed he rose again very shortly afterwards [and went to their death proclaiming it; we have evidence for this too (e.g., Josephus of the first century claim Jesus’s younger brother James was killed for his faith in the risen Christ)]). (All these points of course could be talked about further, but I suppose that would be more of a debate concerning ‘Is Christianity true?’.)

Side: Yes
1 point

Holy crap! I can't imagine a bigger waste of life than religion.

It's just soooooooooooooo crazy!

I'm so glad I'm sane!

Side: No
AngelofRot(31) Disputed
1 point

Couldn't help it could you Nom?

Side: Yes
AngelofRot(31) Disputed
1 point

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Rusticus is Nomenclature

Side: Yes
1 point

So your parents are both crazy. Well....that explains a lot actually...

Side: Yes
0 points

No , a definition below of the term Exist

Exist

verb

1.

have objective reality or being.

"dossiers existed on almost everyone of prominence"

synonyms: live, be alive, be living, have life, breathe, draw breath; More

2.

Side: No
Champybeat(9) Disputed
1 point

Can you please clarify how this evidence against God?

Brayden

Side: Yes
Dermot(5736) Disputed
0 points

Can you please clarify what you do not understand by the meaning of the term exist ?

Side: No
0 points

I don't think god is real nor do I believe in a god, but I do believe that something very powerful made the universe. In my case it is the big bange. Also it is hard to say if there is a god or not, because there are some gods that are easy disproven like Christianity and there are others hoe are hard to disprove. So it is all a matter of what you believe in.

Side: No
NowASaint(1380) Clarified
1 point

What is this "god" which you are saying is not real? What are the gods which you do not believe in?

Are you arguing against God who created all things, or are you arguing against things called "god" or "gods" which were created by you or in your imagination?

Side: Yes
Champybeat(9) Disputed
1 point

The Big Bang cannot explain the cause of the universe - it was the effect and the event. What caused the Big Bang, my dear friend? I assert one who is existence - the timeless, spaceless, immaterial Creator.

Side: Yes
Champybeat(9) Disputed
1 point

The Christian God has most certainly not been disproven! (See evidences I have on other side.)

Side: Yes
0 points

The existence of God is not indicated by anything we know of so I would have to say no.

Side: No
Champybeat(9) Disputed
1 point

I would strong disagree; I would like you to see the evidence I provided on the ‘pro-side’. (And perhaps offer thoughts.)

Side: Yes
0 points

Due to complete absence of evidence I have to say No.

Religion is the greatest waste of time ever invented.

Side: No
Champybeat(9) Disputed
1 point

Please see the evidence I gave on the other side (and perhaps offer your thoughts).

Side: Yes
-1 points

The possibilities of a supreme being or entity is highly unlikely, because there is absolutely no evidence. None whatsoever. Then there is of course the Problem of Evil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problemofevil

Many people try to say that the universe couldn't have been made out of nothing. Well what about God?

Side: No
6 points

There is absolutely no evidence

Sure there is. You just refuse to look at it.

https://www.facebook.com/The-Beast-is-Strong-in-This-One-273041423117102/

Side: Yes
Champybeat(9) Disputed
1 point

To claim the universe can come from nothing is logically absurd. And that’s the point: we need a prime reality, one who is existence. For the universe is contingent, and so we need an ultimate, transcendent necessary being - the Creator, whom we mere humans generally refer to as ‘God’.

Side: Yes
NowASaint(1380) Disputed
1 point

The fact that punishment against evil is delayed does not prove that evil goes unpunished. You are proving nothing except that you are dying....you are proving your own death.

Side: Yes
Champybeat(9) Disputed
1 point

If you are arguing that I can’t use this to solve the ‘problem of evil’, I would disagree to the utmost. This is an argument of worlsviews. Of course it can’t be technically proven that there will be a final judgment (just as God’s existence cannot technically be proven nor disproven). But just because we die also doesn’t prove we cease to exist. We need to see if the Christian worldview has a response to this problem - why evil exists, if it is part of God’s perfect, sovereign will (which it is), and what will happen to it; which it does offer a response - perfect response.

Side: Yes
TzarPepe(763) Disputed
0 points

WRONG

Definition of supreme

1 : highest in rank or authority

2 : highest in degree or quality

3 : ultimate, final

Definition of being

1 a : the quality or state of having existence

b (1) : something that is conceivable and hence capable of existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things

c : conscious existence : life

2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence

3 : a living thing

Side: Yes
Champybeat(9) Disputed
0 points

There is evidence, indeed. (E.g. laws of logic and nature, fine-tuning of universe, biogenesis, complexity of life, information in DNA, moral values, etc.).

Evidence need not be physical - for God is an immaterial being.

Side: Yes
Wolfgang666(174) Disputed
0 points

I would agree that God is an immaterial being in the since that he is imaginary.

Side: No
Champybeat(9) Disputed
0 points

The problem of evil is easily solvable:

If it is even possible God has a purpose for suffering and evil in his world, then it is debunked. Which in Christianity, God planned for its existence knowing ‘the best of all universes’ so to speak. And we believe Christ Jesus will one day return to eliminate evil and suffering, establish the eternal kingdom of God, and restore creation for all eternity.

Side: Yes
Rusticus(810) Disputed
1 point

I am Jesus, I have returned and I'm telling you right now it was all just a joke to keep you morons busy.

Side: No