Theistic Reasoning

[bluegreenearth]

There are few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief. Theists should, at the very least, be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken in their belief regardless of their level of confidence in it. So, if you are a confident theist, do the responsible thing and work with us to help you discover where any logical fallacies or other cognitive errors might exist in the reasoning process you are using justify your religious belief.

This isn't to presume that you haven't already performed this sort of critical analysis yourself or to imply that I or anyone else participating in the peer review process is your intellectual superior. To the contrary, if your reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior, then sharing it will do me and the other participants a great intellectual service. Alternatively, if any errors happen to be exposed in your reasoning process, you benefit from the opportunity to correct for those errors and it wouldn't mean your theistic belief is false. Therefore, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose from cooperating.

Now, if your theistic reasoning process is complex and nuanced, it won't be practical to post a lengthy dissertation on this thread. Instead, if possible, try to break-down your reasoning process into discreet components and permit us to evaluate it one step at a time.

Finally, despite my attempt to carefully word this OP in such a way to avoid or mitigate for potential misinterpretations, I'm fairly confident at least one theist is going to post an objection to something I wrote that was not deliberately intended. If you are that theist, please just ask for a clarification before submitting your objection or leveling accusations against me. Thank you.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 178 by Realworldjack]

You have conflated "thinking about an argument" with "reasoning for an argument." These are not identical concepts. Reasoning in defense of an argument certainly involves thinking but not all thinking is a reasoned argument. Logical fallacies and confirmation bias could only potentially exist within the thinking required to reason an argument in defense of a claim. While thinking is involved in an absence of belief in a claim, it does not involve a reasoned argument in defense of a claim. Therefore, it is not until I begin to reason an argument for or against the resurrection claim that I could potentially be relying upon a logical fallacy or confirmation bias. Conversely, the thinking involved with the identification of logical fallacies and influence by confirmation bias in a Christian's reasoned argument for the resurrection claim is not equivalent to the thinking required to develop a reasoned argument against the resurrection claim. As such, I cannot be relying upon a logical fallacy or confirmation bias when I'm identifying those reasoning errors in a Christian's argument for the resurrection claim.

When I invited you to expose any logical fallacies or confirmation bias in that previous explanation, I wasn't agreeing to the possibility that any such reasoning errors could exist in my explanation but anticipating that your failure to identify any reasoning errors would demonstrate my point. What I probably should have anticipated, instead, was your almost predictable ability to craft unintentional straw-man arguments based on the conflation of two separate but related concepts.

Nice try my friend, but this is not going to work out. As usual, you are simply attempting to change the wording but the results are still the same.

Let us back track. At first you attempted to argue, that "nothing led you to unbelief". I called you out on this, by pointing to the fact that you actually were led to your unbelief by the thinking process, and you had to acknowledge I was correct. Ergo, if you are thinking, there can be logical errors in your thinking, and conformation bias at work at well. Confirmation bias can be the cause of the logical errors in one's thinking process, because confirmation bias can cause one to look for "reason" in order to support what one would prefer.

You claim to have come to the conclusion that,

my absence of belief in the resurrection claim results from having no reliable reason to compel belief one way or the other

Now, I am certainly fine with this opinion, but the question is, what "leads you to this conclusion"? Well, you would have to say, it was the "thinking/reasoning process", because these words are interchangeable.

think·ing
/ˈTHiNGkiNG/

noun
the process of using one's mind to consider or reason about something.

adjective
using thought or rational judgment; intelligent.


rea·son·ing
/ˈrēz(ə)niNG/

noun
the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

The whole point is here, if it is thinking/reasoning which leads you to your conclusions, there can be logical errors in that thinking/reasoning process, and the only way to avoid this would be to insist, "nothing leads you" to the conclusions you have, which would include thinking/reasoning.

Again, if you want to insist, (as you already have) "nothing leads you to the conclusions you have reached", although this should be a shocking admission, it really is not all that shocking to hear such a thing, because we have those who readily admit that they were convinced Christianity was indeed true, to the point that they truly embraced it, to the point they dedicated their life to it, who now want to insist, there was not a whole lot of thinking involved in order to convince them.

So then, either it is your thinking/reasoning process which leads you to the conclusion that your "absence of belief in the resurrection claim results from having no reliable reason to compel belief one way or the other", which absolutely means there can be logical errors in that thinking/reasoning process? Or, you will have to insist there was no thinking/reasoning involved?

Your whole point in the OP was for you to help the theist find logical errors, and confirmation bias in their thinking process, all the while insisting that it would be impossible for you to have logical errors, and or confirmation bias while simply being an unbeliever, and I believe we have actually helped you discover some logical errors in your thinking, because the only way it would be possible, for it to be impossible for one to have logical errors in their thinking/reasoning process, is if they insist they did not think/reason in order to arrive to the conclusions they have.

Moreover, in order for you to help me discover where I may have logical errors, is for you to have to think/reason through the thinking/reasoning process I have used, which would necessarily mean that it would be possible for you to have logical errors in your thinking/reasoning process, helping me to find mine.

There is no way to avoid this, which you understand yourself, which would be the only reason you could go on to say,

If a logical fallacy or confirmation bias exists anywhere in my explanation for having an absence of belief in the resurrection claim, by all means, please expose it that I may make the appropriate corrections.

This sort of thing hurts my head! Because on the one hand you argue that there can be no, logical errors, or confirmation bias in your "absence of belief", and then on the other hand, there can be?

While thinking is involved in an absence of belief in a claim, it does not involve a reasoned argument in defense of a claim.

Sure it does! This is a claim right here,

my absence of belief in the resurrection claim results from having no reliable reason to compel belief one way or the other on account of logical fallacies and confirmation bias existing in every explanation for the available facts and evidence I've been provided thus far.

Here you are making at least 2 claims. One, you have "no reliable reason to compel belief one way or the other". Here, there could be logical errors and, or confirmation bias involved which may have led you to make such a claim? In other words, there may in fact be, "reliable reasons to compel belief one way or the other" but it could be logical errors, and, or confirmation bias which keeps one form seeing such things?

The other claim here is there are, "logical fallacies and confirmation bias existing in every explanation for the available facts and evidence I've been provided thus far". Well, while this could indeed be the case, it could in fact also be the case that, "logical errors, and, or confirmation bias" could be involved in your thinking, which is causing you to draw the conclusion that there are "logical fallacies and confirmation bias existing in every explanation for the available facts and evidence you've been provided thus far"?

I'm sorry, but I cannot help but "think/reason" that it is exactly logical errors, and, or conformation bias, which somehow leads you to believe that every argument a theist gives, is filled with logical errors, and confirmation bias, while you go on to insist that this would be impossible in your case, with the conclusions you have drawn?

As such, I cannot be relying upon a logical fallacy or confirmation bias when I'm identifying those reasoning errors in a Christian's argument for the resurrection claim.

So??? You are seriously attempting to insist that it would be impossible for you to be influenced by logical errors, and, or confirmation bias, in your thinking process, as you are helping me identify my logical errors, and, or conformation bias in my thinking process? GOOD GRIEF!

My friend, the only way you can help me find these things in my thinking, is if you are thinking yourself, and if you are thinking about anything at all, there can be logical errors, and, or, confirmation bias, influencing your thinking?

When I invited you to expose any logical fallacies or confirmation bias in that previous explanation, I wasn't agreeing to the possibility that any such reasoning errors could exist in my explanation but anticipating that your failure to identify any reasoning errors would demonstrate my point.

However, we have indeed identified logical errors in your thinking. One, was where you wanted to insist that "nothing leads me to unbelief", and we have identified, that this would only be possible, if thinking did not lead you to unbelief.

We have also identified that in your unbelief, you were under the impression that you are making no claims, but you are indeed making claims when you say,

my absence of belief in the resurrection claim results from having no reliable reason to compel belief one way or the other on account of logical fallacies and confirmation bias existing in every explanation for the available facts and evidence I've been provided thus far.

Here you are claiming there would be, "no reliable reason to compel belief, one way or the other", and it is possible that you may have logical errors, and confirmation bias involved in your thinking which leads you to this conclusion?

You then go on to claim there are "logical fallacies and confirmation bias existing in every explanation for the available facts and evidence I've been provided thus far", and again, it could be logical errors, and confirmation bias which leads you to this conclusion?

The thing is, you are desperately attempting to avoid the "burden of proof", and or, logical errors, and confirmation bias, in your thinking. You can avoid the "burden of proof" by making no claims which you cannot demonstrate to be fact. The only way in which you can avoid the possibility of having logical errors, and or confirmation bias in your thinking process, would be to insist that you did not think in order to come to your conclusions, which you have actually attempted to argue.

I do not make claims which I cannot demonstrate to be facts. Therefore, I own no "burden of proof". I have used my mind in order to think/reason, to come to the conclusions I have, and I am fully aware that I could have logical errors, and confirmation bias, influencing my thinking/reasoning process.

Ergo, who is it really, who understands how deep seated confirmation bias can affect their thinking? Would it be the one who insists their thinking could not possibly be affected? Or, would it be the one who fully understands that if they think about anything at all, there is always the possibility to be influenced by such things?

I intended to stop here, but this post of your's is filled with logical errors.

You have conflated "thinking about an argument" with "reasoning for an argument."

My friend, if you are going to help me find fault in my thinking, then you are going to have to do more than simply "think about my argument". Rather, you are going to have to make an argument yourself, in order to demonstrate my faults. Once you begin to do this, we may be able to expose the logical errors in your argument, which would have come form your thinking/reasoning.

Reasoning in defense of an argument certainly involves thinking but not all thinking is a reasoned argument.

Thinking is not an argument at all. It is when you begin to make the argument that I have fault in my thinking, that we may be able to expose fault in your thinking, which we are successfully doing now.

While thinking is involved in an absence of belief in a claim, it does not involve a reasoned argument in defense of a claim.

We have discovered how this would be false, because if one is thinking at all, there is potential for fault in one's thinking. Next, you have to make claims as one who lacks belief, and one of the claims we see that you make would be there is, "no reliable reason to compel belief one way or the other". You also make the claim there would be, "logical fallacies and confirmation bias existing in every explanation for the available facts and evidence I've been provided thus far". The point is, there could be fault in your thinking which allows you to make such claims.

Therefore, it is not until I begin to reason an argument for or against the resurrection claim that I could potentially be relying upon a logical fallacy or confirmation bias.

All you are doing here is to attempt to avoid the possibility of error in your thinking concerning the resurrection, and this is impossible to avoid. There are those who insist the claim would be true, there are those who insist the claim would be false, and there may be those who insist there would be "no reliable reason to compel belief one way or the other", and it is possible that everyone of these folks would be influenced by, logical errors, and, or confirmation bias, in their thinking.

Conversely, the thinking involved with the identification of logical fallacies and influence by confirmation bias in a Christian's reasoned argument for the resurrection claim is not equivalent to the thinking required to develop a reasoned argument against the resurrection claim.

However, in order to help the Christian find fault in their thinking, you will definitely have to make an argument to help them identify these faults, which demonstrates there can be error, and, or confirmation bias in your own thinking, which can be causing you to see things, in the way in which you would rather see things. You cannot avoid this.

As such, I cannot be relying upon a logical fallacy or confirmation bias when I'm identifying those reasoning errors in a Christian's argument for the resurrection claim.

Sure you can! There are those who would rather you come to the conclusion that the resurrection would be true. There are those who would rather you come to the conclusion it would be false. And there are those who would rather you come to the conclusion that the best tact to take would be to remain neutral, and all of them can be affected by logical errors, and, or confirmation bias, as they help one find fault in their own thinking.

My friend you have a position concerning the resurrection. The position you "claim" to hold at this point would be a neutral position, and it could be logical errors, and or confirmation bias which causes you to hold this position. So then, there is no way to avoid this without making the argument, that you simply do not think in order to arrive to your position.

However, as we return to "intellectual honesty" again, I have to wonder if you are truly being "intellectually honest about this position? In other words, I believe there are those who if they were "intellectually honest" would have to admit that they are really convinced Christianity would be false. But, since they would like to avoid making any sort of claims, they opt to not believe one, way, or the other, hoping to avoid burden of proof, and possible errors in their thinking.

The thing is though, if one simply claims to be convinced that Christianity is false, without going on to insist that it must, and has to be false, then they own no burden, and are free to exchange ideas, beliefs, reasons, evidence, etc. in order to support what it is they believe, and working with those opposed to determine where there may be logical errors, and, or conformation bias, int those opposed, as well as determining if they may be guilty themselves? Or, one can simply insist that there is no way in which they could be guilty of such things, which causes them to be able to help those who are in need of their help, since they have freed themselves of logical errors, and confirmation bias?

But, what we have seen is, if one is actually thinking, then there is not way to avoid the possibility of logical errors, and confirmation bias, and those who are under the impression they can think, without this being a possibility, they are living in a "fantasy world".

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 191 by bluegreenearth]

I would really like to keep responding here. This is at least the third time you have opened an OP in which you have been kind enough to help us as theist out, in order to assist us in to discovering where we may be guilty of logical errors, and confirmation bias. The reason you are so able to help us is the fact that you claim to have found a way in which you cannot possibly be guilty of such things.

I can only imagine this may stem from the fact that you, yourself were a Christian at one time, and were able to identify the logical errors in your thinking process, and, or the confirmation bias, you held in order to become convinced Christianity were true, which must bring you to the conclusion, that everyone else who is convinced Christianity would be true, must, and has to have the same exact, logical errors, and confirmation bias that you once had.

In fact, there are those who not only claim to have had logical errors, and confirmation bias, in order to be convinced Christianity was true, they even go on to freely admit, there was not a whole lot of thinking involved at all, in order to convince them Christianity was true.

Of course now they would like to insist that they are now thinking, and it was this thinking process that has lead them to become convinced that what they were once convinced would be true, they are just as convinced now, that it would be false, and they, like you, desperately want to find a way in which to claim that there is no possible way they can be guilty of logical errors, and, or confirmation bias in their thinking, and the way in which they believe they can accomplish this task is to simply claim they are making no stand whatsoever at this point.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

The exact wording I used was "reasoning for an argument" and "reasoning in defense of an argument." When I have an absence of belief, I'm not reasoning for or in defense of an argument. I'm not making an argument at all when I have an absence of belief because I haven't yet reached a conclusion. Your insistence that my absence of belief is functionally equivalent to a reasoned argument is as absurd as suggesting an absence of belief is functionally equivalent to having a belief (A = not A).

Furthermore, when I identify a logical fallacy in an argument, I'm not making my own argument in doing so because I don't need to argue that a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. You are basically suggesting that I need to argue for the Law of Identity (A = A). For example, shifting the burden of proof is a defined logical fallacy. So, when someone shifts the burden of proof in an argument, it is logically fallacious by definition. I don't need to make an argument that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy when I identify that error in an argument.

One thing I am beginning to believe based on the available facts and evidence is that you are not actually on this forum to engage in a good faith discussions but to troll unbelievers. I'm probably using fallacious logic in reaching that conclusion but you are welcome disprove that claim.

[Athetotheist]

If magic exists magically, there's nothing to keep it from being magically conscious.......but that's speculation.

Agreed. But speculation is not a sound logical argument for that specific conclusion.

A perfectly logical assumption......to the extent that logic can be applied to magic.

Of course, someone will eventually ask how magic can exist without a cause, and you will give the logical answer: since nothing else can, it must.

[FarWanderer]

If magic exists magically, there's nothing to keep it from being magically conscious.......but that's speculation.

Agreed. But speculation is not a sound logical argument for that specific conclusion.

A perfectly logical assumption......to the extent that logic can be applied to magic.

Magic defies explanation, not logic. Different things.

Defying logic would be nonsense like if God somehow created the universe without himself ever existing.

Of course, someone will eventually ask how magic can exist without a cause, and you will give the logical answer: since nothing else can, it must.

The whole point of calling it magic is that you don't need to explain it.

[Divine Insight]

Of course, someone will eventually ask how magic can exist without a cause, and you will give the logical answer: since nothing else can, it must.

The whole point of calling it magic is that you don't need to explain it.

Exactly. Calling something magic is just another way of saying that we don't understand it.

Also, to Athetotheist, what's the rush in having answers to questions we don't yet know the answer to?

Your conclusion that since we can't yet explain it means that it must be "magic", is nothing more than a display of impatience in wanting to answer questions you aren't yet in a position to answer.

Instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions that something must be magic, why not wait until all other possibilities have been exhausted first. We're clearly not at that point, yet you act as if we are. That's a false premise already.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

The exact wording I used was "reasoning for an argument" and "reasoning in defense of an argument." When I have an absence of belief, I'm not reasoning for or in defense of an argument. I'm not making an argument at all when I have an absence of belief because I haven't yet reached a conclusion. Your insistence that my absence of belief is functionally equivalent to a reasoned argument is as absurd as suggesting an absence of belief is functionally equivalent to having a belief (A = not A).

Furthermore, when I identify a logical fallacy in an argument, I'm not making my own argument in doing so because I don't need to argue that a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. You are basically suggesting that I need to argue for the Law of Identity (A = A). For example, shifting the burden of proof is a defined logical fallacy. So, when someone shifts the burden of proof in an argument, it is logically fallacious by definition. I don't need to make an argument that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy when I identify that error in an argument.

One thing I am beginning to believe based on the available facts and evidence is that you are not actually on this forum to engage in a good faith discussions but to troll unbelievers. I'm probably using fallacious logic in reaching that conclusion but you are welcome disprove that claim.

Let's try to walk through this slowly. In order for you to help me find fault in my thinking, you will have to think yourself. When anyone thinks, it is possible that their thinking can have logical errors, and confirmation bias.

Next, when, and if you believe you have found fault in my thinking, you will then have to make an argument in order to demonstrate this fault I may have. When you begin to make this argument in order to point out my fault, we may be able to see where you may have fault in your thinking.

You see, this is what we have been doing. You are attempting to make arguments concerning the fault in my thinking, and I have been demonstrating the fault in your own thinking. One of the faults in your thinking would be, with the position you hold, you are under the impression, there can be no logical errors, and, or confirmation bias involved, and this is simply false, which demonstrates a logical error, which may be caused by confirmation bias.

Allow me to point this out one more time. Anytime someone thinks, there is a possibility of logical errors, and confirmation bias influencing their thinking, which may be causing them to come to incorrect conclusions. The only way to avoid this possibility, would be to insist that one did not think at all, to come to the conclusions they have. You actually attempted to make this exact argument yourself, until I pointed out this logical error on your part, and you then conceded that you did indeed think to come to your conclusion, which necessarily means there can be logical errors in that thinking.

When I have an absence of belief, I'm not reasoning for or in defense of an argument.

This right here is a logical error. You had to think in order to come to this unbelief. One of the "ARGUMENTS" you have made in defense of your position is, there is "no reliable reason to compel belief one way or the other on account of logical fallacies and confirmation bias existing in every explanation for the available facts and evidence I've been provided thus far".

This right here is a "reasoned argument". You reasoned this in your mind, and you go on to make an argument, in defense of your unbelief. I can clearly see logical errors in your reasoning here, which may be caused by confirmation bias, but this is beside the point. The point now is, in your unbelief you are reasoning, and you are making an argument in defense.

I'm not making an argument at all when I have an absence of belief because I haven't yet reached a conclusion.

Here is another logical error, because you have indeed reached a conclusion, and you have shared this conclusion with us which is, "there is no reliable reason to compel belief one way or the other".

Your insistence that my absence of belief is functionally equivalent to a reasoned argument is as absurd as suggesting an absence of belief is functionally equivalent to having a belief (A = not A).

No! This is not it at all. My friend, I am fairly confident that it was not you who came up with this argument, because I have heard this argument long before you arrived to this site. This argument sounds good to one's ears at first, but in the end it simply does not hold water.

The argument of course is, if I do not insist the claims, are true, or false, then I cannot be accused of logical errors, and or confirmation bias. What we have seen is, this is simply false, because if one thinks at all, then they can be guilty of logical errors, and conformation bias.

Next, I want to get back to something you seem to be avoiding which involves the "intellectual honesty" you refer to in the OP. If you were "intellectually honest" could you really hold to simply having an "absence of belief"? Or, would you have to admit that you really believe the claims in the NT to be false, and you are attempting to use the "absence of belief" as a tactic to avoid being accused of confirmation bias? All I can tell you is, if it is a tactic, it does not work, because you can still be found guilty of confirmation bias.

However, to your point above, I am not insisting anything other than what you say of yourself which is, you have an absence of belief. My point is, you had to think/reason to come to this idea, and you have indeed made an argument in defense of your conclusion, and ergo, you can be guilty of logical errors, and conformation bias. You cannot avoid this no matter how desperately you try. If one thinks at all, they can be guilty of logical errors, and conformation bias, and the only way for you to avoid this, is to go back to the argument you had at the start, and insist that thinking is not involved. The choice is yours.

Furthermore, when I identify a logical fallacy in an argument, I'm not making my own argument in doing so because I don't need to argue that a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy.

This is a "logical fallacy" in itself. How in the world can you identify a "logical fallacy" in my thinking, without making an argument? First, you would have to make the argument that you have identified a logical fallacy in my thinking, and then you would have to argue as to why it would be a logical fallacy, just as I am doing now to you.

You are basically suggesting that I need to argue for the Law of Identity (A = A).

This is really funny! This is not it in the least. I am not suggesting that you need to argue for anything at all? Rather, it is you who is "arguing" that you make no arguments, the whole time you are "arguing".

My point is, you may not be arguing for the claims to be true, or false, but you are indeed making arguments, and you are making arguments in defense of the position you now "claim" to hold, and the arguments you are making, I will assume came from your thinking/reasoning, and if I am correct, then there can be logical errors, and, or confirmation bias involved in anyone who thinks.

For example, shifting the burden of proof is a defined logical fallacy. So, when someone shifts the burden of proof in an argument, it is logically fallacious by definition. I don't need to make an argument that shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy when I identify that error in an argument.

I do not want to get to far off track here, but you would indeed have to argue they were guilty of "shifting the burden of proof", and you could be in error. As an example, there are those who have accused me of shifting "the burden of proof", and they were in error, because I do not make claims which I cannot demonstrate to be facts. So then, when they make claims which they cannot defend, I am not "shifting the burden of proof" to them, because I never had "the burden of proof to shift".

So then, you would have to "think/reason" they were "shifting the burden of proof", and make the argument, and it could be your thinking that would be in error?

One thing I am beginning to believe based on the available facts and evidence is that you are not actually on this forum to engage in a good faith discussions but to troll unbelievers.

Well, let's examine the facts, and evidence involved here? I do not know how many posts you have made here on this site, but it would be my guess that the overwhelming majority of those post, I have not responded to at all.

However, this is at least the third time you have opened an OP in which you offer help to the theist, in order to help them identify their logical errors, and confirmation bias, and each time I have seen where you have done so, I have joined in as soon as I notice it.

So then, could it be that I may be interested in certain topics more than others, and you continue to bring one of these topics up that I am interested in, over, and over?

The point is, if I were simply "trolling" you, I would attempt to engage most any post you write. However, the evidence shows here, that I have engaged with you on the same topic over, and over, while ignoring the overwhelming majority of what you have to post.

[Athetotheist]

Instead of jumping to unwarranted conclusions that something must be magic, why not wait until all other possibilities have been exhausted first. We're clearly not at that point, yet you act as if we are. That's a false premise already.

If, as we agree, the real question is "How can anything exist at all?", what "other possibilities" have any advantage even over magic? Who's kicking the can down the road now?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 205 by Realworldjack]

The problem with the argument you've presented is that, if followed to its logical conclusion, results in a paradox. You claim to desire constructive criticism of your argument but also claim any constructive criticism of your argument is also an argument which you respond to with constructive criticism that is also an argument.... on and on to the point that you never have to concede that the constructive criticism of your argument is valid. How do you propose to ever discover if your argument contains any logical fallacies or influence by confirmation bias when you respond in this way to constructive criticism of your argument? Seems to me that you are stuck in your belief with no mechanism for identifying or correcting potential reasoning errors. As such, on what grounds do you justify confidence in your belief or are you admitting that you are not confident in your belief?

[Hawkins]

So simple. Whatever arguments you can come up with, apply them to human history first. Even in the case of contradicted history, such as how Chinese and Japanese deem Nanjing massacre differently, we can all start with the firm belief that it did occur!

There's a reason behind this, go figure it out!