If I was God, I’m just not sure I would have done it. Create humans, that is.
When I look around at the world, I wonder …… Have you wondered too?
A big question mark
Have you ever imagined what you would have done if you were God? Even if you don’t believe God exists, treat it as a hypothetical. Would you have created?
Creating the universe, I can understand. It would be fun to work out all the details. Anyone who’s designed a house or decorated one, or laid out a garden, or painted a major work or written a novel, knows the joy and challenges of creation. So many possibilities, so many choices.
Imagine the fun of setting up the laws of the universe so that galaxies form, with stars and planets, all with different properties and geography. It would be like a giant sim universe computer game, except a zillion times more fun.
But would you create life? Or set up the laws so that life formed and evolved until human beings appeared?
Why would you want humans to exist?
And would you allow humans to start wars, to torture and enslave, to commit crimes and to hurt each other emotionally? Why would you allow that?
Or would you somehow make sure they only did nice things, good things, constructive things, fun things?
It is a challenge to think why God did it. And how it could perhaps have been different.
Maybe God was lonely?
Sometimes people get pets if they feel lonely. Perhaps God was the same. Animals are fun, but maybe God wanted more – companionship, or someone to teach. Perhaps God wanted to feel needed?
I guess we could be like his pets. But if we were created to give him pleasure, are we achieving that? Is all the pain in the world pleasing to him? It hardly seems so. Christianity, like most religions, teaches a standard of behaviour much higher than the human race has so far achieved.
So that can’t be the reason. God’s loneliness isn’t being much reduced by the human race, and we don’t seem to be making him happy.
Maybe God made a mistake?
Maybe all this human pain took God by surprise? He started the universe off, expecting a happy result, and ended up with all the messiness we know as life?
Or maybe it’s just an experiment gone wrong?
It certainly seems like our little part in the universe hasn’t turned out as God wanted, but it’s hard to believe that someone who could design the laws of the universe to such a fine degree that, against all the odds, galaxies, planets and life formed, couldn’t predict how it would all turn out.
So maybe God did it for us?
There is pleasure in giving and helping. Parents know that a new child in their family will cost time, money, energy and emotion, but they still do it. Not for a selfish reason (hopefully) but so they can create a new life and love that child so much it can hurt.
The gift of life is precious. So it seems most likely to me that God created a universe that would bring forth life because he wanted to give of himself to us. That makes sense to me ….. up to a point.
But how does it work?
So who gets to receive God’s love and care? And how do they experience it?
This life or the next?
Some people apparently experience God and his love in this life, through experiences of healing, love, joy and more. But most of us don’t seem to. Even for many believers, God seems very distant or hardly there at all, and for unbelievers God must be even further away. (Of course, life itself is a gift of God’s love, but I’m thinking of something where God’s love is clearer and more tangible.)
And many people experience pain, alienation, illness, abuse, injustice, oppression and unhappiness in this life. It seems that if God did create us to love us, his plan must entail more than what this life offers.
So logic seems to lead to the conclusion of many religions, from the ancient religions of the Egyptians or the Norse, to the more sophisticated teachings of the great monotheistic faiths. If there is a God, there is an afterlife where the hurts, injustices and inequalities of this life are evened out, or compensated for.
But then, what happens to those who perpetrate the injustices, hurts and pain?
Is an afterlife only for a select few?
Most religions (not all) teach that there are strict conditions we have to meet to receive God’s love and favour. Believe certain things. Do certain religious duties. Follow certain commandments.
Stuff that most of us can’t achieve, either because it is too hard, or we live in the wrong place and never heard the right message.
If it is only the select few, God’s love for us is very limited. You’d think he’d want more people to receive his love and care. You wouldn’t think he’d want his love conditional on being in the right place and the right time to hear and believe and obey. And you’d think he’d choose to have mercy on people whose life doesn’t live up to God’s standards through no fault of their own.
And what happens to those who aren’t among the select few? Do they miss out on God’s love and care in the next life? Are they punished in some sort of hell? It seems very wasteful and unloving if God did it this way. Maybe God gives us the dignity of choice and our willingness to receive God’s love determines what happens next? But would God create a world where so many miss out on life in the next world?
Maybe everyone receives his love in an afterlife?
This is an attractive idea. Maybe every person who is born into this world receives the gracious gift of life in the next, regardless of what they did and how they lived?
It’s attractive in theory, until we think of people whose lives have caused much misery, pain and violence to others. You can pick your own villains here – there are plenty to choose from, unfortunately. So should they have just as much a reward in the next life as those who live altruistically or sacrificially to serve others?
Some christians who believe in “universal reconciliation” believe that all people who haven’t responded positively to God in this world go to a nether world where God’s love is made very clear to them. They can choose to respond to his love, repent of the harm they did in this life, and receive God’s gracious gift on a new life. Or they can hold out as long as they choose. But eventually, God’s love will win them over and they will make a free choice to accept his forgiveness.
That’s a plausible version of an attractive idea, and it may be true. But we may question it. If it’s true, why do virtually none of the major religions recognise it and none of the major religious gurus teach it? Was God incapable of getting it across to them? Or is it just just now being revealed? As a christian, the fact that Jesus didn’t seem to teach this is a significant difficulty.
Further, it makes you wonder why God created this present life in the first place. If this life isn’t the place where we make decisions about God, why create it at all?
(My only thought on that is that God gave us this life to create ourselves from the basic genetic building blocks given to us – another example of God giving us great freedom of choice.)
Despite these difficulties, universal reconciliation remains a possible answer to some of life’s deepest questions.
Is it somewhere in between?
Maybe between a world where only a few are blessed with life in the age to come, and a world where everyone is blessed in that way, there is another option?
Perhaps many more people make it than we think, but nevertheless God honours our choices. If we choose to go our own way and live in ways that don’t please him because they are harmful, this life is all we receive. But if we sincerely seek truth and try to live according to whatever light we have been given, God recognises our heart and we receive his grace, regardless of which religion we follow, or if we follow none?
Choosing the “right” religion will still be important because it helps us orient in the right direction, but it may not be crucial.
I find this to be the most believable option myself, because it allows God to be loving while also allowing us deep freedom, autonomy and responsibility.
When too much choice is barely enough
But the question remains, why does God allow so much pain and evil? Doesn’t she care? Or is he not powerful enough to stop it?
The classic explanation is that God created us in her image, with freedom of choice and responsibility for our actions. That is a great good. But it also opens the door for using freedom for personal pleasure at the expense of others, and too often we walk through that door.
But for me, this explanation falls short in two ways.
Firstly, it doesn’t account for the pain that comes from the natural world and not from anyone’s bad choices – earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and disease, etc. Couldn’t God have created a world with less of these dangers?
And secondly, couldn’t God have tipped the balance a little in our characters? Couldn’t he have made us a little more inclined to altruism and a little less selfish, while still allowing us freedom? Just shifting the boundaries a little within which we exercise our freedom?
I feel the force of those questions. The only way I can see a solution is that God chose to create life via evolution, maybe to give the universe greater autonomy. Evolution is built on natural selection, which in essence is based on competition for scarce life resources. To some degree animals, or groups of animals (or genes), have to be selfish to survive and to predate on others. So we have come from that heritage, and now we need to overcome that predisposition to be selfish. That’s another value of religious belief – it gives us greater incentive to break out of the bonds of natural selection.
I don’t feel that “explanation” fully addresses the existence of pain and suffering, but it goes some way and is the best I have come up with so far.
Nevertheless, the majority of people worldwide are happy with life, so there are so manmy positives about being alive, despite the problems.
Question, questions
All viewpoints have their difficulties, though not all of us are willing to face them.
Atheists cannot really satisfactorily explain how the universe came to exist and how it is so well-designed in its physical parameters to produce life. Nor how humans have free will as we experience it, nor how things can be truly right or wrong as we all believe and live. For these reasons (and others) I find it impossible to not believe there is a God.
But believers find it difficult to explain why God allows so much evil and pain, and who in the end receives life in the age to come (if they believe in an afterlife at all). I find these matters difficult to resolve, but not strong enough to outweigh the reasons to believe.
I wonder how you resolve all these questions?
HI Eric
I deeply enjoyed this post and really appreciate the detail you went into. The problem of evil (and I define evil as a lack of empathy for others) is indeed a deeply important topic, as well as a persistent conundrum (and rightly so). My personal, and very limited, take is pretty simple (and without a doubt in my mind, almost certainly wanting), if God is truly all loving, and if some part of us is preserved or eventually resurrected after brain death, it seems logical to me that any evil we can commit and the suffering/trauma we feel is inherently finite, while unconditional love and euphoria (things we often attribute to the divine, and I certainly hope that is the case) is infinite. That doesn’t answer why there is evil of course, and I won’t pretend I have an inkling why.
But it seems natural to conclude, if God is all loving, then at some point we are “purified” by his/her love. So I generally like the universalist approach, although I see the coherence in conditional immortality/resurrection too. I find the idea of Hell incoherent and indefensible, and have found many Christian writers and scholars who actively oppose that view. So when it comes to evil people (I don’t believe anyone is truly evil, in my view its often because of upbringing, brainwashing, or neurological factors), they are either redeemed or God no longer sustains them and/or resurrects them.
On another note, wishing you and your lived ones a merry Christmas and happy new year!
Aaron
It is interesting that you as an agnostic and I as a christian agree pretty much on these matters. I was interested in your comment: “any evil we can commit and the suffering/trauma we feel is inherently finite”. I haven’t thought of it exactly like that before, but I agree with it. The traditional concept of hell would mean that evil continued forever. I came across the understanding many years ago, from the Greek text, that the New Testament doesn’t speak of an eternal torment hell. It was a little radical back then (though I got it from a very conventional evangelical christian professor of Greek), but more and more christians are realising it now, and agreeing that that doctrine is monstrous.
Thanks for your good wishes. I certainly wish the best for you now and into the new year. I enjoy these interactions.
Hi Erik,
Question for you: When Moses and Elijah appeared to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration, what type of bodies did they have? Resurrected or other? Thanks.
Hi Gary, how are you going? Haven’t heard from you for a long time.
As for your question, I haven’t a clue, I can’t see how I could know. I can think of several possibilities. My GUESS is that they were a vision, an appearance and not physical, but that’s only a guess.
Why do you ask?
I think the Story of the Transfiguration sheds light on how first century people thought about sightings of dead people. In Greco-Roman culture a ghost could have a body. The Gospel authors seem to agree with this belief. Moses and Elijah did not appear in resurrected bodies (the general resurrection has not yet occurred). They were not in “raised from the dead bodies” as the text says that they popped out of view in an instant. Real human bodies don’t do that. So that leaves ghostly bodies. And these ghostly bodies were so real that Peter wanted to build housing for them.
So if Peter could see the ghosts of Moses and Elijah and believe they were real, why couldn’t he see the ghost of Jesus and believe it was real? What do you think?
Let’s jump first to the more general question – is it possible that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection? And of course it is possible. I just don’t think it is true, or even likely. Just as I imagine you would agree that it is possible that God exists and he resurrected Jesus – you also don’t think it is true, or even likely.
But as to the parallel you are suggesting, I think it is problematic., for a whole range of reasons.
1, You say Greco-Roman, but we are dealing with Jews.
2. I say vision (possibly the word used in Matthew) then you say ghost.
3. You say couldn’t be resurrected because (a) general resurrection hadn’t occurred and (b) they “popped out of view in an instant”. But neither reason prevented Jesus from rising and appearing & disappearing, so why not here too?
4. You mention Peter, yet ignore that one of the accounts says he didn’t know what he was saying and so was obviously confused.
5. No-one in the transfiguration touched the two OT characters nor did they eat, as the resurrected Jesus did.
So I think the parallel you suggest isn’t at all apt. The resurrection stands or falls on its own merits.
So may I ask you a question please? We have “known” each other for a long time now, and the resurrection has always seemed to be important to you. Why is this still the case? Thanks.
Good morning, Erik.
Yes, the original eyewitnesses were allegedly Jews, but we have no uncontested eyewitness statements from any of these Jewish eyewitnesses. All we have are the accounts written in the Gospels, whom most scholars believe were not eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses, authors one or two generations removed from the alleged events they described, authors who were very likely Gentile Christians. Bottom line: The authorship, eyewitness status, and Jewishness of the Gospel authors is contested. And Paul, a Jew, tells us nothing about what he saw in his appearance experience.
Matthew plagiarized 90% of Mark’s gospel…yet in this story tweaks Mark’s story with the claim that it was only a “vision”. Sounds to me like “Matthew” was clever enough to see the danger in Mark’s story of introducing the concept of ghosts with bodies into the Christian tradition, so with one word he changed a literal event to a visionary event.
“But neither reason prevented Jesus from rising and appearing & disappearing, so why not here too?”
I apologize for not being more clear. If Moses, Elijah, and Jesus can “pop” in and out then they were not “raised from the dead” bodies or “resuscitated” bodies because these bodies are still purely human. Human bodies do not pop in and out of view. So these bodies are either resurrected bodies (reanimated and transformed) or they are spirits with the appearance of bodies (ghosts).
“You mention Peter, yet ignore that one of the accounts says he didn’t know what he was saying and so was obviously confused.”
Good point. Gospels authors allege that Peter was often having visions/trances and then being confused afterwards. He had a dream of animals floating on a sheet and wasn’t sure if this event was real or not. This shows the fragile state of Peter’s mind, demonstrating the strong possibility that the origin of the Resurrection Belief can be traced to Peter’s unstable brain.
“No-one in the transfiguration touched the two OT characters nor did they eat, as the resurrected Jesus did.”
You are assuming that the Gospels stories of disciples and women touching Jesus are historical. But either way, it doesn’t discount the possibility that the disciples believed that Moses and Elijah had come back from the dead. Peter wanted to build housing for them. This is evidence to me that the disciples could see ghosts and believe they had seen dead people.
So do you agree that the original claims of people seeing the risen Jesus could have been due to spirit/ghost sightings?
As to your last question: I have made rebutting the Resurrection my hobby. I consider myself a counter-apologist; an evangelist for reason and non-supernaturalist thinking. I am excited to have the opportunity to be part of the greatest movement in human history: the movement to debunk fear-based religious superstitions, the cause of massive human suffering and violence.
Hi Gary,
I’m having this strange feeling of deja vu. In the space of 3 comments you have changed the subject three times – from the transfiguration to the authorship of the gospels to the resurrection – which means you don’t offer evidence for what you say before you move on. I seem to recall this occurring in previous discussions.
I found a dozen misrepresentations and matters of fact in your latest comment that I think are unsupported by the evidence, some of them expressed in somewhat pejorative ways. And I seem to recall this occurring in our previous discussions too.
Perhaps as an evangelist this is to be expected. But I’m not much interested in going through these sorts of games again – you can read these two pages to see how I feel: https://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/life/logic-or-feelings/#scene and https://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/life/when-the-arguments-over/.
So are you willing to change approach, deal with one issue before jumping off to another, and use accurate language supported by evidence for claims you make? Or should we call it a day here?
Thanks.
Sorry, Erik. I was trying to be polite and answer all your questions. How about we stick to this one question:
If Peter could see a ghost on the Mount of Transfiguration and believe he had seen Moses back from the dead, why couldn’t he see a ghost after the crucifixion of Jesus and believe he had seen Jesus back from the dead?
Thanks.
Thanks. That’s easy.
He didn’t see a ghost, that’s just your idea. He either saw a vision or resurrected persons. But sure, I have already said he could have been mistaken about the resurrection, I just don’t think so.
So now my questions ….
1. If Peter was a human being with two eyes, and since he was a professional fisherman probably quite good eyes, why couldn’t he see a resurrected Jesus and believe he had seen a resurrected Jesus?
2. If quite a few other people had two eyes, why couldn’t they all have seen a resurrected Jesus and believe they had seen a resurrected Jesus?
Your original statement said you didn’t know how Moses (and Elijah) appeared to the disciples.
“As for your question, I haven’t a clue, I can’t see how I could know. I can think of several possibilities. My GUESS is that they were a vision, an appearance and not physical, but that’s only a guess.”
I agree with you. It is impossible to know. There are several possibilities:
1. Moses appeared in a resurrected body (reanimated and transformed) exactly the same as Jesus resurrected body after he rose from the dead.
2. Moses appeared in a “raised from the dead” body, similar to that of Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter.
3. Moses appeared in a spirit body (ghost). His dead body was still on Mt. Nebo.
4. The disciples and Jesus experienced the exact same vision (hallucination or dream), although psychiatrists and psychologists tell us this is impossible.
5. This story is legendary. It never happened.
You believe that what happened was option 4 or option 1. I believe it was probably option 5. But allowing for all possibilities (including those of a supernatural nature), I would say that all of these options could be the explanation.
I am happy to hear that you agree that the resurrection sightings could have been mistaken. They could have involved vivid dreams, illusions, cases of mistaken identity, hallucinations, and even lying.
To your questions:
1. ” If Peter was a human being with two eyes, and since he was a professional fisherman probably quite good eyes, why couldn’t he see a resurrected Jesus and believe he had seen a resurrected Jesus?”
I would agree that it is probable that Peter had good eyesight but I’m sure there are plenty of very good fisherman who don’t have the best of eyesight. So I would agree that if Peter had good eyesight, which he probably did, and it is true that the supernatural operates in our universe, it is very possible that Peter saw a resurrected Jesus.
But I’m not concerned about Peter’s eyes, I’m concerned about his brain. Anyone who believes he may or may not have seen a floating sheet of animals is not dealing with a full deck. Add to that someone who experiences a “vision” about a man who has been dead for over a thousand years (Moses)—and decides to build the dead man a house! Not exactly a rational, critical thinker. So, I believe it is highly likely that Peter’s experience of a risen Jesus involved something occurring in Peter’s brain.
2. “If quite a few other people had two eyes, why couldn’t they all have seen a resurrected Jesus and believe they had seen a resurrected Jesus?”
I readily admit that it is possible, allowing for the supernatural, that all the resurrection appearance stories found in the Gospels are historical facts. However, the issue is not what is possible but what is more probable. Why do you believe that a never heard of before or since resurrection is more probable than vivid dreams, illusions, cases of mistaken identity, lying, or hallucinations or a combination of all of these?
OK, so we can summarise.
1. We both agree there could be several explanations for the transfiguration, though of course we disagree on which is most likely.
(Just in passing, I disagree with this statement: “The disciples and Jesus experienced the exact same vision (hallucination or dream), although psychiatrists and psychologists tell us this is impossible.” A vision is different to a hallucination. It is something given by God and psychologists cannot tell us it is impossible.)
2. We both agree that it is possible that Jesus’ resurrection happened and didn’t happen. And again we disagree which is most probable. But you have summed up why when you say it could be true if “the supernatural operates in our universe”. Just as I would say it is unlikely to be true if there’s no God.
So why are you questioning me, a theist, about the resurrection?
But again may I point out a gross over-statement and mis-statement when you say “Anyone who believes he may or may not have seen a floating sheet of animals is not dealing with a full deck.” This is why I think discussion with you has little value, and why I think your evangelistic crusade against the resurrection is doomed to failure. Such statements sound strong and dismissive, but anyone who knows anything about the subject will know how much of an exaggeration it is.
As you have just admitted, if God exists, such visions are quite possible without any mental illness on Peter’s part. But further, secular psychologists have investigated mystical experiences (which are much broader than visions, but can include them) and found quite the opposite of what you say. You may like to read about some of this in Mystical experiences and Visions of Jesus.
“Why do you believe that a never heard of before or since resurrection is more probable than vivid dreams, illusions, cases of mistaken identity, lying, or hallucinations or a combination of all of these?”
1. Because many historical sources say it happened.
2. Because it makes sense of the evidence (as per NT Wright).
3. Because no other explanation makes any sense.
4. Because I trust Mark, Luke, John, Paul & James to be genuine.
5. Because why wouldn’t God resurrect his son?
You are correct that if the supernatural operates in our universe then an experience of seeing a floating sheet full of animals is possible. But note that Peter was unsure if the experience was real or visionary. So saying Peter was not dealing with a full deck maybe a little harsh, but the poor chap doesn’t seem to have had the best critical thinking skills. Either way, I would not trust this man’s judgment if he told me he had just seen a back from the dead corpse. His judgment seems impaired.
I would agree that we both have biases influencing our beliefs. I have a bias against the supernatural and you have a bias for the supernatural. But it is important to note: The overwhelming majority of theists on earth also reject the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. You can say that they too have biases, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of people on earth, including most theists, think your evidence is poor. Your best evidence, the existence of an empty rock tomb only has, at best, 75% of scholars supporting the historicity of this tomb. For what other historical fact do 25% of experts reject the claim?? The evidence is poor, Erik. Is it possible that your belief in this never heard of before or since supernatural event is primarily based on your subjective perceptions of the presence of the spirit of this first century man/god “in your heart”?
Hi Gary,
“So saying Peter was not dealing with a full deck maybe a little harsh, but the poor chap doesn’t seem to have had the best critical thinking skills.”
OK, now a challenge for you. You keep using dismissive and pejorative statements to describe Peter’s state of mind (and other things). I suggest this hypothesis: you use these throw-away descriptions because you cannot express them medically without revealing how shallow and wrong your judgments are.
In support of my hypothesis, I say this:
1. You are apparently a doctor. You are capable of using professional terms to decribe mental conditions, and that is how you would behave in your prefesional life. Yet you don’t use them here.
2. In the two pages I referenced above ( Mystical experiences and Visions of Jesus) I analyse religious experiences including visions, based on copious references. These show that the experts generally don’t think that most religious experiences are pathological or psychotic, though some are. Please read both pages.
3. Where they are abnormal, the person is seldom able to function normally and their life deteriorates. Yet Peter is able to carry on a fishing business and later become a respected leader in the early christian church, quite the opposite.
So my challenge to you is to put together a serious diagnosis that fits the facts of neurological disorders and the New Testament and disprove my hypothesis.
There are several inconsistencies in your second paragraph, but I’ll come back to them later.
“I suggest this hypothesis: you use these throw-away descriptions because you cannot express them medically without revealing how shallow and wrong your judgments are.”
As you know, I am a doctor. Any patient who comes to me and tells me that he may or may not have seen a floating sheet with wild animals on it would get an immediate referral to a psychiatrist. And then when he starts telling me he also may or may not have seen his fishing buddy chat up two dead guys, I would instruct his family to drive him immediately to the mental hospital. You are the one wanting us to make an exception to routine medical practice for your delusional first century religious zealots.
I find it very funny when Christian apologists howl with outrage when I assert that the disciples most probably experienced some sort of mental crises (delusion, illusion, hallucination, bad dream) when they imagined that a dead corpse had appeared to them, yet when I bring up the supernatural claims of Mohammad they immediately cry out: He was a liar or he was delusional! And the same occurs when I bring up the supernatural claims of Joseph Smith: He was a liar or he was delusional. Yet if I say Simon Peter, whom the Gospels say was the first person to receive a resurrection appearance, most likely was a liar or delusional, I am accused of jumping to conclusions. Yet even the Bible indicates that Peter was prone to “seeing things” and was a world-famous liar! Your objections are hypocritical, my friend.
“Where they are abnormal, the person is seldom able to function normally and their life deteriorates. Yet Peter is able to carry on a fishing business and later become a respected leader in the early christian church, quite the opposite.”
I see patients every day with mental illness (major depression, anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, dementia, schizophrenia, etc.). Most mentally ill people function normally MOST OF THE TIME and only decompensate when in an emotional crises or medical illness leads them to become psychotic and delusional. So your argument fails.
You did not respond to this statement: “I would agree that we both have biases influencing our beliefs. I have a bias against the supernatural and you have a bias for the supernatural. But it is important to note: The overwhelming majority of the world’s theists (who believe in miracles and the supernatural) also reject the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. You can say that they too have biases, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of people on earth, including most theists, think your evidence is poor.”
So can you really claim that the evidence for this never heard of before or since first century supernatural event is “good”?
“Your objections are hypocritical, my friend.”
So, you didn’t accept the challenge. I offered you, in those two pages, many references to expert neuroscientists and pschyologists (which neither you nor I are) that the sorts of claims you make are not generally true of people who have religious experiences including visions.
You haven’t suggested what diagnosis you make of Peter, you haven’t offered any evidence that your way of describing Peter is correct, yet I am hypocritical?
So, Gary, this discussion ends where they always do, with you refusing to offer evidence to stand against the copious evidence that I offer. You prefer unprofessional and imprecise allegations. I might be wrong, but you never even attempt to demonstrate it with evidence.
And so it is clear that there is no point in proceeding. I allowed you first comment to stand because I though it’s a new year, maybe a new discussion. But sadly, no.
Nice talking to you, Erik. Have a very happy New Year, my friend.