mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Can there be a Theory of God in Science? Options
Toddey65
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:34:34 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 108
Neurons: 336
Location: United States
Is it possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science, and if this did happen would God still be classified as supernatural or would we reclassify him as a natural phenomenon. And most importantly can we ever classify him as a natural phenomenon, and now my head is about to implode, so I will say Auf wiedersehen for now.
worldsclyde
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:52:45 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/24/2010
Posts: 785
Neurons: 2,390
Location: Spokane, WA USA
I think this would fall in the category of meta-physics. I would not shy away from some evidence of a god or gods but I can't imagine what that evidence would be. I think first we would have to change our concept of what a god is.

Welcome to the forum
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:13:18 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,131
Neurons: 594,898
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
I'd put this under studies of anthropology.
Jenandew
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:32:30 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 1/7/2010
Posts: 24
Neurons: 72
Location: United States
Toddey65 wrote:
Is it possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science, and if this did happen would God still be classified as supernatural or would we reclassify him as a natural phenomenon. And most importantly can we ever classify him as a natural phenomenon, and now my head is about to implode, so I will say Auf wiedersehen for now.


I'm no scientist, but I assume this could never be proven. It would remain a theory. I would compare it to the Big Bang.
dlux3
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:37:51 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/22/2010
Posts: 188
Neurons: 557
Location: Cairns, Far North Queensland, Australia
Yes, it's called the sun. It also extremely arrogant that you refer to the personification of 'god' as him. Poor form, imploding head or not.


wercozy
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:27:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/1/2009
Posts: 1,470
Neurons: 3,480
Location: United States
dlux3, referring to God as 'him' is a guy thing, and women, because of their shorter stature just follow along blindly because they have to.

Toddey65, my answer to your question would be a 'no' for the following reasons:
1. The big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago, all the witnesses are dead.
2. In order to believe in God it takes faith and the belief in miracles. According to the Catholic church, miracles cannot be explained by science.
3. God can never be known as a natural phenomenon because It cannot be tested by science, cannot be experienced by the 5 obvious senses, and cannot be experienced by the 3 not-so-obvious senses.
4. That is why God is not referred to as a natural phenomenon, It is referred to as a supernatural phenomenon.
kitten
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:01:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 2,463
Neurons: 7,420
Location: the city by the bay
No, not to the satisfaction of all. It seems there has to be a winner and loser. Good and evil. One extreme or another.d'oh!

So, no.


peace out, >^,,^<
ludic
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:20:52 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/7/2010
Posts: 1,153
Neurons: 3,544
Location: New Delhi, NCT, India
Toddey65 wrote:
Is it possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science, and if this did happen would God still be classified as supernatural or would we reclassify him as a natural phenomenon. And most importantly can we ever classify him as a natural phenomenon, and now my head is about to implode, so I will say Auf wiedersehen for now.



It is more appropriate to say that someday we will all understand God, by the means of either science or philosophy or a combination of both or the pure revelation that happens to a receptive and competent mind. I don't see that day in the near future. But when we would have understood him, I'm sure we would have reached the stage of wisdom where we would not make the puerile attempt to try and classify him into a subject, because he is above any subject, he is every subject, and he is every object...

But that day of the ultimate intelligence is lakhs of years away. Don't fret much about that. Try solving the big-bang mystery first.

:)


PS : When I refer to God as Him, I do not imply that He is a male. I use 'him' because it's difficult to find a pronoun for 'A living energy'. 'Him' is convenient.
Phallic_Acid
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 1:16:55 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 1/21/2011
Posts: 1
Neurons: 3
Location: Canada
Toddey65 wrote:
Is it possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science, and if this did happen would God still be classified as supernatural or would we reclassify him as a natural phenomenon. And most importantly can we ever classify him as a natural phenomenon, and now my head is about to implode, so I will say Auf wiedersehen for now.


Your theory of God is in the Bible. The truth can be found in the movie Zeitgeist.
pedro
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 4:45:09 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/21/2009
Posts: 13,057
Neurons: 63,022
It might be the case that we find all the building block equations that describe the universe and all known phenomena within our scientific grasp some things may but not know why they have to be that way rather than any other (nature of universe prior to Big Bang or why are there so many dimensions for example). Then your God would be in the equations. That would be a sort of Pantheism (see Spinoza for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Panentheist.2C_pantheist.2C_or_atheist.3F).
Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:19:52 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
No absolutely not, when reason and observation explain existent phenomena they cease to be gods, as in the case of earth, wind, and volcano gods. There are however emerging sciences that may tell you what happens to societies that refuse to mature and continue their reliance on divine providence.
Christine
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:37:41 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/3/2009
Posts: 3,917
Neurons: 15,842
Universal Intelligence?
DrewPDrawz
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:39:10 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 1/21/2011
Posts: 1
Neurons: 3
Location: Australia
This is like asking, "Can there be a theory of ghosts in Science?" Science doesn't deal with imaginings and supposedly conjured spirits. There is no God, or gods. Grow up.
richsap
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 8:40:25 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/16/2010
Posts: 275
Neurons: 1,510
Many worship God (meaning a faith-appropriate definition of an extreme deity) based upon the faith that there is a reason and/or origin for all that we know but can not explain. A great creator when referencing things such as the Earth or stars or universe. In the case of planets and stars and such how they came into being is more or less satisfactorily explained by science, be it real or theoretical. I labeled myself as agnostic for several decades because I consider myself to have a scientific, factually-based mentality. Then I dug deeper and started asking the questions that science can not (or at least has not as of yet) explain. What is the origin of matter itself? If there was indeed a "big bang", where did the material for this come from? You know, deep philosophical questions of the type that are drug induced and/or keep you up late at night thinking about.

So IMHO God is the answer in search of the appropriate question. When that question is answered satisfactorily by science, God ceases to be the default answer. So the million dollar question would then be not if God will ever be explained by scientific theory or fact, but is science will ever be able to explain "the beginning (Alpha)"? Rather than blow a chip thinking about it, I now choose to believe that there is a "God", not as a physical being but as an acceptance of faith or sprit of the people if you will, and that we are here for a reason. Faith also helps smooth out a lot of the day-to-day stuff as well. I used to think that religious belief was for the weak; I now profess it to be the mortar that holds the bricks in place. A fuse that keeps us from short-circuiting our minds when we search for the answer to the un-answerable questions.

I don't know if I answered the question in an understandable way or for that matter at all, but at least I kept my mind preoccupied for a few minutes.
redgriffin
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:22:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/3/2010
Posts: 662
Neurons: 160,127
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
Wasn't it Arthur C Clarke who said "in some societies science would be considered magic." Which would mean that we believed in a God or Gods to explain what science how explains. So it may be that we will never have a place where God and science can coexiste but I do believe that you can believe in God and in Science which might be the same thing
Klaas V
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 12:32:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/12/2010
Posts: 1,339
Neurons: 4,802
If you believe in statistics in general and demography specifically figure out how many people are religious in "believe in one or more Gods" as opposed to people who are scientists who believe only in what one can see and prove then I'm in favor of God to explain there is what there is. God is indeed supernatural in all meanings. For me as a christian (and ex-agnostic) there is only one solution: There must be a God, no other explanation can convince me let alone that scientists can prove they are right in their idea there is no such thing as what we believers call God (or Allah, YHWH etc. etc.). I can't do but agree with people who say: The existence of God can't be proven. That's why it's called belief...

Hope this was clear enough.

Disclaimer: "I am not a native speaker of English. IMHO a valid excuse for eventual spelling and/or grammar errors".
redgriffin
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 1:58:12 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/3/2010
Posts: 662
Neurons: 160,127
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
If you believe in science and not A Supreme Being don't you really worship science and therefore science is your religion? As for me I believe that a belief in God and Religion and in Science can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive.
RuthP
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 4:00:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
redgriffin wrote:
If you believe in science and not A Supreme Being don't you really worship science and therefore science is your religion? As for me I believe that a belief in God and Religion and in Science can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive.

Disclosure: I do not believe in god(s) or goddess(es). I would ask you to consider what you mean by "believe in science".

Most of the time people say "believe in science," they seem to be referring to belief in a current theory around which some find controversy, e.g. evolution or climate change.

It is important to remember science is not our current state of knowledge: science is not evolution; science is not climate change. Science is a practical, proven method by which we continue to expand our understanding of that which we observe in the world. That is why science does not conflict with a deity.

A deity, supreme or super/supra-natural being, god(s), goddess(es) are generally considered to be outside of or above the natural, observable world around us. As such, a deity is outside the purview of science. Science is mute upon that which is not observable and testable. As a deity is not observable, science is mute.

I do not see God and science as mutually exclusive; I simply see no objective, reproducible evidence for a deity.

Given this explanation of mine, I now ask:

Why would you say I worship science? What do you mean by worship? What am I worshiping? (No fair just saying "science" again)
Rama
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 4:13:17 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 11/23/2010
Posts: 13
Neurons: 39
Location: Islamic Republic of Iran
science can never prove the existance of God
Toddey65
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:35:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 108
Neurons: 336
Location: United States
Jenandew wrote:
Toddey65 wrote:
Is it possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science, and if this did happen would God still be classified as supernatural or would we reclassify him as a natural phenomenon. And most importantly can we ever classify him as a natural phenomenon, and now my head is about to implode, so I will say Auf wiedersehen for now.


I'm no scientist, but I assume this could never be proven. It would remain a theory. I would compare it to the Big Bang.


Big Bang is a theory because it explains how the universe came into being. A theory is just something that explains but it also has to have a lot of evidence to corroborate it or it would only be a hypothesis.
RuthP
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:40:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Toddey65 wrote:
Jenandew wrote:
Toddey65 wrote:
Is it possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science, and if this did happen would God still be classified as supernatural or would we reclassify him as a natural phenomenon. And most importantly can we ever classify him as a natural phenomenon, and now my head is about to implode, so I will say Auf wiedersehen for now.


I'm no scientist, but I assume this could never be proven. It would remain a theory. I would compare it to the Big Bang.


Big Bang is a theory because it explains how the universe came into being. A theory is just something that explains but it also has to have a lot of evidence to corroborate it or it would only be a hypothesis.

Excellent distinction Toddey65.

A hypothesis is a proposal. Once a hypothesis has been (sufficiently) tested, it becomes a theory.

What some people are running up-against here is the fact that in discussing science, it is necessary to use these words (hypothesis and theory) as they are defined by science. This is a little different from non-technical/non-scientific usage, which often treats hypothesis and theory as synonyms.
Toddey65
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:43:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 108
Neurons: 336
Location: United States
dlux3 wrote:
Yes, it's called the sun. It also extremely arrogant that you refer to the personification of 'god' as him. Poor form, imploding head or not.




lol Applause I really don't care if god is a him, I did that inadvertently. I completely forgot that he could be anything...but nevertheless in Christianity he is a him, as men are in his image. And if my head is imploding I have a right to be improper. Thank you.

Epiphileon
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:54:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
RuthP wrote:

Given this explanation of mine, I now ask:

Why would you say I worship science? What do you mean by worship? What am I worshiping? (No fair just saying "science" again)[/color]


First thank you Ruth for an excellent summation of why science is not a belief set, this concise, straight forward explanation eluded me in another thread where I was arguing the point.

I am somewhat curious to see the answer to your last question, as legitimately there is none. But I think I can answer your first question, it is for the same reason that people want to equate belief in religion and god(s), with a natural science view of reality. Which is what I was trying to nail down in my discussion with Alias on page 4 of "Does one thing stand out that causes disbelief in a creator?".
Personally I think it is a type of straw man argument, for those who want, or need, to insist that their belief in god(s) can be validated through reason and science. If they can convince non-believers that their non-belief is belief, then it is just a different kind than theirs, and the two are equally valid.
I really hope you get what I'm trying to say there Ruth for I've noticed you have a much better ability at stating things clearly and succinctly than I do.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:58:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 43,131
Neurons: 594,898
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Science: the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.

Religions give the easy way to jump over the fence at the lowest point where current scientific methods don't give any widely accepted answers, yet. Just think the medieval geocentric view of our world.

Now even Papal authorities admit our picture of the universe is somewhat right but still there is debate of evolution vs creation. Funny!
Toddey65
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 6:08:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 108
Neurons: 336
Location: United States
ludic wrote:
Toddey65 wrote:
Is it possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science, and if this did happen would God still be classified as supernatural or would we reclassify him as a natural phenomenon. And most importantly can we ever classify him as a natural phenomenon, and now my head is about to implode, so I will say Auf wiedersehen for now.



It is more appropriate to say that someday we will all understand God, by the means of either science or philosophy or a combination of both or the pure revelation that happens to a receptive and competent mind. I don't see that day in the near future. But when we would have understood him, I'm sure we would have reached the stage of wisdom where we would not make the puerile attempt to try and classify him into a subject, because he is above any subject, he is every subject, and he is every object...

But that day of the ultimate intelligence is lakhs of years away. Don't fret much about that. Try solving the big-bang mystery first.

:)


PS : When I refer to God as Him, I do not imply that He is a male. I use 'him' because it's difficult to find a pronoun for 'A living energy'. 'Him' is convenient.


Yes, thank you, I also use "him" for simplicity sake. I do realize that there are many different definitions of god, like Sikhs' genderless god, Christians' male god, and there are Pantheists, of course.

Toddey65
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 6:35:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/19/2009
Posts: 108
Neurons: 336
Location: United States
RuthP wrote:
redgriffin wrote:
If you believe in science and not A Supreme Being don't you really worship science and therefore science is your religion? As for me I believe that a belief in God and Religion and in Science can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive.

Disclosure: I do not believe in god(s) or goddess(es). I would ask you to consider what you mean by "believe in science".

Most of the time people say "believe in science," they seem to be referring to belief in a current theory around which some find controversy, e.g. evolution or climate change.

It is important to remember science is not our current state of knowledge: science is not evolution; science is not climate change. Science is a practical, proven method by which we continue to expand our understanding of that which we observe in the world. That is why science does not conflict with a deity.

A deity, supreme or super/supra-natural being, god(s), goddess(es) are generally considered to be outside of or above the natural, observable world around us. As such, a deity is outside the purview of science. Science is mute upon that which is not observable and testable. As a deity is not observable, science is mute.

I do not see God and science as mutually exclusive; I simply see no objective, reproducible evidence for a deity.

Given this explanation of mine, I now ask:

Why would you say I worship science? What do you mean by worship? What am I worshiping? (No fair just saying "science" again)


Bravo! Applause I think you provide the most terse explanation of what Science is, I would also like to point out that Science is collective and like the game of Economics. The Scientists set their own rules but because it is a game other scientists must agree with their rules, otherwise it is negligible. Just an example I thought of extemporaneously.
redgriffin
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 7:05:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/3/2010
Posts: 662
Neurons: 160,127
Location: Portland, Oregon, United States
"Disclosure: I do not believe in god(s) or goddess(es). I would ask you to consider what you mean by "believe in science"."
You ask a fair question Ruth To "Believe in Science" I would say that you would be a person who blindly follow science in a way you are a Fundamentalist of Science It has to be provable or it is not allowed to exist. These people would openly scoff at religion as "Mumbo Jumbo and witchcraft. They would be so unbending as to be unable and unwilling to accept what is unexplainable, at the time.

Now I know that the explanation may be clear as mud but that is how I see it. As for Science proving the Existence of God Science works to look at a target and God is always moving so God's Existence can never be proved to a believer in Science.

dev_sircar
Posted: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:25:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 234
Neurons: 5,932
Location: Kolkata, Bengal, India
Toddey65 wrote:
Is it possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science, and if this did happen would God still be classified as supernatural or would we reclassify him as a natural phenomenon. And most importantly can we ever classify him as a natural phenomenon, and now my head is about to implode, so I will say Auf wiedersehen for now.


It is not possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science; for as soon as a theory (explanation) is put forth, the question will arise asto who created the circumstances that created God.
So, it can only be poslulated that God is eterneal - He existed since timeless past, is existing since time started and shall exist for ever afterwards, even after time has ceased to exist.
.
ENZO
Posted: Saturday, January 22, 2011 1:05:36 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 1/22/2011
Posts: 3
Neurons: 9
Location: Australia
Let's contemplate:

When Jesus was on earth, HE taught us this peayer: "OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN, HALLOWED BE THY NAME, THY KINGDOM COME, THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IT IS IN HEAVEN. GIVE US THIS DAY OURDAILY BREAD, AND FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US, AND LEAD US NOT IN TEMPTATION, BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL. SO GOD DOES EXIST BECAUSE JESUS (HIS ONLY SON) DECLARED IT. SO THERE IS NO NEED FOR SCIENCE TO TELL US THAT ISN'T IT?
noorfr
Posted: Saturday, January 22, 2011 3:02:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/11/2011
Posts: 196
Neurons: 4,341
Location: New Delhi, NCT, India
Toddey65 wrote:
Is it possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science......


in my opinion, the definition of god is very much possible within the limits of today’s science.
but the big question arises here, what we are looking for. everybody carries her / his own definition of god.
wercozy
Posted: Saturday, January 22, 2011 4:47:09 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/1/2009
Posts: 1,470
Neurons: 3,480
Location: United States
richsap wrote: "where did the material for this come from?"

Well, this may sound weird, but I have to put it out there because the more we learn, the more questions we have. When Planck scanned the universe, why did it look like it was scanning the inside a ball? Planck scanned the edges of the universe. Edges of what? Why is it round?

Here comes my theory: Maybe we have it all wrong. Maybe the cosmos is a solid block of matter and the universe we can see is crumbling and decaying. Maybe eternity is a solid block of matter and empty space is something new.

Check this out... scroll to the center of the page and watch the video:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMF2FRZ5BG_index_1.html
larry marvin
Posted: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:43:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/23/2010
Posts: 239
Neurons: 710
Location: Im back
Toddey65 wrote:
Is it possible that someday there will be a theory (explanation) of God in science, and if this did happen would God still be classified as supernatural or would we reclassify him as a natural phenomenon. And most importantly can we ever classify him as a natural phenomenon, and now my head is about to implode, so I will say Auf wiedersehen for now.



If, at the end there is no God, then it does not matter if one believed or not; if, at the end you discover God then it will matter and we all better pray God is as forgiving as the scribes of the bible say God is.
Is God a hypothesis, a theory, a him, a her, an it, a space creaturer? or no question is God?
The quest to prove the existence of God is the wrong approach, can anyone disprove the existence of God?
Scientific Mumbo Jumbo aside, Would the theorist take credit for the scientific discovery or assign credit to divine intervention? JK.
Epiphileon
Posted: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:13:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,287
Neurons: 166,581
larry marvin wrote:

If, at the end there is no God, then it does not matter
Oh but indeed it does matter, one of the great dangers of widespread belief in god, particularly one whose "will be done", is that it allows for people to go on blithely down the road to extinction trusting in a plan and a god which do not exist.
Scientific Mumbo Jumbo aside,
I'm not even sure what kind of fallacious argumentation this is, it may not even merit a name. "Scientific Mumbo Jumbo"
Really?????
F.D.S.O.
Posted: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:57:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/9/2010
Posts: 64
Neurons: 188
Location: United States-West Memphis AR
ENZO wrote:
Let's contemplate:

When Jesus was on earth, HE taught us this peayer: "OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN, HALLOWED BE THY NAME, THY KINGDOM COME, THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IT IS IN HEAVEN. GIVE US THIS DAY OURDAILY BREAD, AND FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US, AND LEAD US NOT IN TEMPTATION, BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL. SO GOD DOES EXIST BECAUSE JESUS (HIS ONLY SON) DECLARED IT. SO THERE IS NO NEED FOR SCIENCE TO TELL US THAT ISN'T IT?


Applause well said that pretty much ends it. welcome
worldsclyde
Posted: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:36:34 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/24/2010
Posts: 785
Neurons: 2,390
Location: Spokane, WA USA
Too many people unloading their religious beliefs here. They have a forum don't they? It was a legitimate question of science at first. Sorry Toddey65.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.