Determinism, Compatibilsm, Free Will, Ex Nihilo

[bling]

There are false assumptions being made here. You are taking the properties of finite numbers and trying to apply those properties to infinities. It doesn't work that way.

That kind of argument reminds me of "Well, if a rocked goes half way from the Earth to the moon, then again half of that distance, and again half of the remaining distance ... it will never get there."

But, guess what? If you shoot a rocket at the moon .... it WILL get there. Assuming that it will ONLY go half way is a false assumption.

Also, assuming that time must always be linear isn't necessarily the way to go,

"I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man-the immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man." - JS

.I am in agreement with most of what you say, but the arrow (you use a rocket) scenario is not the same, because there is a finite distance between the earth and the moon. With God there is no beginning point, so where do you start? The point is we just cannot make God limited by time, but that is just what we do when we talk about God being in time and there being a before and after for God.

You out-thought yourself a little here. IF God lives outside of time altogether, then there is no "instant" when God "decides" anything. It simply IS. Therefore, God has no decision in the matter.

Just ask Bill. He will tell you all about it.

But seriously,

... in traditional Christian theology, there are "communicable attributes" and "non-communicable attributes" of God. Christians will say that God CANNOT create another being who has the attributes of omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

However, if God can create any kind of being logically possible from nothing, then God could create someone with the "godly attributes" that are communicable, such as love, wisdom, patience, reverence, etc.

Tell me, is that the kind of world we live in? Or did God create people who lack many of these attributes?

What kind of world do we live in and what kind of people exist within it? We have a whole bunch of horrible sinners (more sinners than righteous people) who were created by God. Why?



-7up

[Bill the Cat]

You still have the problem of God not being able to have a relationship with his eternal Son, Jesus Christ, outside of creation .... because both are outside of time prior to creation in your theology.

The real problem is that you treat them as two completely separate entities. I do not. Therefore, my position does not suffer from that problem.

Eternal matter was the ONLY idea prior to the mid to end of second century A.D.

No it wasn't. May himself admits "The idea of the universe's ontological origination from God is not evident in Scripture"

The people who developed the doctrine just turned the Platonic single substance which was "the only uncaused thing" into the single substance which is the "the only uncreated thing". Entirely borrowed from Platonic thought.

Sorry, but no. Plato and Aristotle both postulated eternal matter. Plato , in Timaeus listed eternal matter as "formless and free". Aristotle in Physics called eternal matter "the formless before receiving form". F.F. Bruce explained that eternal matter was of Hellenistic origin, not Hebrew.

Contrary to that, I am saying that there are infinite uncaused causes.

And the can of worms that opens is rather large. For instance, as I boiled down, and you constantly dodged, on the old site, there simply is no reason that the individual "uncaused cause" named Elohim advanced before any other "uncaused cause" other than timing. For if one "uncaused cause" can exalt itself without assistance, the others are just as capable without any assistance.

For starters, you conflated two different ideas and refused to acknowlege it.

No I didn't.

7up wrote: I have said this MANY, many times. It is amazing that you keep getting this wrong after the lengthy discussions we have had. I NEVER argued that foreknowledge is the same as causation. I argue that creation Ex Nihilo is the same as causation.

Bill responded: "Since creatio ex nihilo is all about foreknowledge, then you are equating the two whether you want to admit it or not."

Foreknowledge is NOT equated to causation.

I know that. But that is the strawman you were attempting to attribute to my beliefs. You were conflating the two when trying to argue against my position. It failed then, and it still fails.

Just take the DICE example I gave earlier in this thread. Let's say that God DOES NOT CREATE the dice from nothing. They already exist! God may know what combination will be rolled, but God is not the cause of the combination rolled. Big difference.

But when you were trying to dissect what I was arguing, you were conflating the two. That's the whole point I was making in the other thread, and that I am continuing to claim here. You keep arguing that my belief uses foreknowledge and causation the same way. it doesn't.

So, you were forced to get around this by saying that essentially that our WILLS exist from eternity.

In God's mind, they do. Not as separate entities, but as knowledge He possesses.

But for all practical purposes, that is the LDS position and you simply decided to mirror it.

I have never claimed that we exist as actual separate entities separate from God! You really aren't able to follow that simple claim...?

The only difference is that you say that our wills, choices, etc existed eternally in God's mind, rather than wills/intelligences that have always existed outside of God's mind in reality.

As knowledge, that is correct.

You retreated into your PanEntheistic view, so there was nothing left to discuss.

That's not panentheism, dumbass. Wasn't then, and isn't now.

You are essentially saying that GOD is FORCED to create what occurs eternally in God's mind, thus God makes outwardly into created temporal reality the eternally existing reality of God's mind.

That's correct. Or else He would know something that was false, which is not possible considering the definition of perfect foreknowledge. I'll make it REEEEAL simple for you. How do you think Jesus knew the rooster would crow three times? Lucky guess? Perhaps He had the Holy Ghost goose the rooster thrice to make His prediction come true?

Anybody who looks at the definition of PanENtheism will see it for what it is. You simply deny it.

We've done this dance before, 7...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

P.S. Kind Debater made complaints about you and cow poke and other posters there to other moderators. Those complaints were ignored (she complained how rude , unChrist -like, and unreasonable you are). She and I finished our conversation elsewhere.

So, it was just MY threads you ran from. Got it.

[Bill the Cat]

No, I get it. But what YOU don't get is that your theory here still means that OUR WILL, even as God's foreknowledge, is just as effective and at creating reality as God's will.

Wrong. Our will does not create. It is the blueprint by which God creates. Do the blueprints build the house, or does the builder? DO the blueprints have any ability to lift a brick? To spackle the drywall? To lay the insulation?

[Bill the Cat]

Actually, that is not official doctrine. It may be true, but I wouldn't go as far to say that the LDS religion teaches it as part of the gospel.

Because they knew how damaging it would be to try to explain why we worship a lesser being, among other hilarity.

In fact, many LDS presidents have discouraged people from taking dogmatic positions on these theories.



-7up

It IS doctrine that Elohim (or Ahman as Orson Pratt called him) was a human on another planet and was exalted to godhood, and as a result, it can be deduced from other speeches and teachings that someone had to exalt him, so god had a god of his own.

[JimL]

Wrong. Our will does not create. It is the blueprint by which God creates. Do the blueprints build the house, or does the builder? DO the blueprints have any ability to lift a brick? To spackle the drywall? To lay the insulation?

Where did the blue prints come from?

[Bill the Cat]

the question on God, what did He know and when did He know it.

How do you uncreate something that already has been created. (is there a past present future tense with something like Bible-God) If you know the future, then to you , even future events would be past tense because they've already happened because you saw them happen.

So if God foresaw that Jichard was not going to believe in Him, ....then its too late. If God causes Jichard to not exist, then how is that God saw Jichard in the first place? If God prevents Jichard's existence, then God's omniscience was false when He saw an existing Jichard rejecting God.

.....gotta stop here, this makes me dizzy

That's exactly my point.

[Jichard]

No, I get it. But what YOU don't get is that your theory here still means that OUR WILL, even as God's foreknowledge, is just as effective and at creating reality as God's will.

Wrong. Our will does not create. It is the blueprint by which God creates. Do the blueprints build the house, or does the builder? DO the blueprints have any ability to lift a brick? To spackle the drywall? To lay the insulation?

Occasionalism is ridiculous. Why are you advocating occasionalism (applied to human minds)?


By the way, your blueprint analogy is a false analogy since the relationship between:

1: a human's will (or more precisely: certain human mental states instantiated by their human brain)

and:

2: the reality that will causally effects (ex: human behavior)

is not the same as the relationship between:

3: a blueprint

and:

4: a house

For example, the relationship between 3 and 4 is one of representation or description/depiction; that is: the blueprint describes/depicts/represents what the house is or will be. This is not the same as causing the house to be a certain way. The blueprint need not cause the house to be a certain way, anymore than my map of America has to cause America to be a certain shape. This contrasts with the relationship between 1 and 2, since the relationship between 1 and 2 is a causal relationship; that is: a human's will causes reality to be a certain way. For example, my will can cause me to move certain objects around in my room, via my signals sent to my arms from my brain.

Once that point is made clear, then it's evident that in your analogy, a human's will is not necessarily analagous to a blueprint. Instead, the human's will is analogous to the builder, since the human's will causally affects reality (ex: causing me to move objects around in my room), just as the builder causally affects reality by building a house. You mistakenly seem to think otherwise, since you seem to think that:

5: if God made humans, then it is God who is really causally influencing reality, not humans

This is a just a specific instance of the general principle:

6: If X causes Y to exist, then X is the real causal factor, while Y has no genuine causal effects

Principle 6 makes no sense. For example, by the logic of this principle, the Earth has no causal effects, since the Earth was caused to exist by something else. But of course this is absurd, since we have evidence of the Earth's causal effects (ex: Earth's gravitational effects of the movement of neraby objects). And principle 6 is just as absurd when it's applied to humans. For example: my parents caused my exist. Yet it would be absurd to claim that my parents are the real causal factor for all I do, while I'm not a genuine cause of anything. After all, there are plenty of things I can do in reality, regardless of whether my parents still even exist or not. Yer principle 6 implies otherwise. So principle 6 makes no sense. A parallel problem arises for your claim: humans can causally affect reality, regardless of whether or not God made humans. And the causally effects of humans should not be attributed to God, unless you want to claim that God is the real cause for all immoral actions that humans do, while humans are not the real cause. And at that point, you really couldn't hold human's responsible for their behavior, now could you?

[JimL]

I am saying that each roll is truly "random". God did not force each roll to roll something specific. God can "choose" which dice to create out of nothing (out of infinite possibilities), and THAT is how God determines outcomes. God is not determining outcomes by forcing each roll.

Do the dice freely choose their path and end, or is their path and end determined by the roller?

This can be made parallel to free will choices. Each free will choice is not forced by God, however, out of the infinite possibilities of different kinds of creatures/people who make different kinds of choices, God can determine what occurs by deciding which creatures/people to create and which ones not to create.

Its not a sound analogy 7up, equating the roll of the dice with the path that people take and then asserting that their choices along that path to be free choices doesn't make them so.
---------------

[JimL]

Sure it is.



This is a terrible analogy, but I need you to work with me on this... think of it like a painter. He knows what the painting will look like when he is done. It "exists" in his mind as an idea, but doesn't exist in reality yet. Now, imagine He knows what YOU as the painter will be painting perfectly, down to the brush stroke, even before you paint it. Now imagine He can see every sequence in your painting the portrait as if you were doing it right now.

Now, God sees everything as "right now". He knows what the painting is going to look like and knows every stroke the painter will paint, and thus creates the painter, brush, paint, easel, and canvas exactly as He saw it happening. But He creates them at a specific point in time/creation. Prior to that point in time/space, they did not exist in our reality, but they existed in God's mind as knowledge. For me, right now, my grandchildren exist in God's mind as He knows everything they will ever do, because to Him, they exist "now" and He knows what to create to facilitate their choices as He knows them.

No, sorry Bill, but that just doesn't make sense. God does not know what the painting "is going" to look like" because god knows, as you put it, like an idea in his mind, what the painting looks like eternally. So, if the idea of creation exists in the mind of god eternally, exists as his own eternal idea, before he transforms that idea into a temporal reality, then the only one that could possibly be responsible for that eternal ideas transformation into a temporal reality is the creator himself. Like your painter analogy, if the painter has the idea of the painting in his mind, and then he paints a picture to the exact detail of his idea, who is responsible for the details, the paint?

Since God exists outside of our reality, He did. And since He knows what we will choose, He creates to actuate those choices.

Doesn't matter. If the idea of creation is itself eternal, then the idea wasn't created, and the temporal or created version of that eternal idea is just a copy of the eternal idea itself.

Because we do not now physically exist in eternity. We exist in a temporal state. He does not.

But the blue print, gods eternal idea of us does exist eternally. Are you free to change that once god creastes you from that blue print?

Our choices are not eternal. They are known eternally.

If your choices are known eternally, and you are a temporal being created in accordance with that eternal knowledge, then you are an automaton.

Actually, I've given this a tremendous amount of thought. It's the only way any of it can make sense with an eternal God. Otherwise, we end up with the Mormon concept of an exalted being, and the illogic that flows from that. 7up's religion teaches that God had a father who exalted Him, and God's father had a father who exalted him, ad infinitum. And somehow, by being exalted, God knows things that will happen in the future from both his and our standpoint, despite never having seen or experienced the future.

Yes, well perhaps the idea of an eternal god that knows but isn't the cause of the temporal future is the thing that is confusing you.

[Psychic Missile]

So, our choices are based on our environment, rather than something within ourselves? Is that what you are saying?

I don't believe in free will, but even assuming free will exists, it can't be denied that environment has some impact.

I've heard that one before. God puts on a "cosmic blind fold", because he doesn't want to know that he is creating Hitler, when he creates Hitler. However, that doesn't really remove God from responsibility, does it?

-7up

It depends upon how much control God had in shaping the universe. If there was much meddling in the natural processes, then God might as well get rid of the greater evils. If there was not much meddling, then there's a slippery slope. If God is going to remove the greater evils, he might as well remove the lesser evils, and the inconveniences, and the concept of failure, and at that point decide against creating the universe.

[seven7up]

So if God foresaw that Jichard was not going to believe in Him, ....then its too late. If God causes Jichard to not exist, then how is that God saw Jichard in the first place? If God prevents Jichard's existence, then God's omniscience was false when He saw an existing Jichard rejecting God.

.....gotta stop here, this makes me dizzy

If God knows Jichard's personality so well, that God knows what he is going to do in any given situation, and God sees that Jichard is a "bad egg" so to speak, who will not believe in God, then God can simply not decide to create Jichard in the first place.

-7up

[seven7up]

I am in agreement with most of what you say, but the arrow (you use a rocket) scenario is not the same, because there is a finite distance between the earth and the moon. With God there is no beginning point, so where do you start? The point is we just cannot make God limited by time, but that is just what we do when we talk about God being in time and there being a before and after for God.

No. It isn't exactly the same. My point is that the assumptions are wrong when trying to deal with the supposed "infinite regression problem".

Dan Barker deals with a lot of these issues here: http://infidels.org/library/modern/d.../kalamity.html


Then really you are saying that God's time is different than the time that we experience, but that isn't "outside of time altogether".

.OK we finally get to the real question so let me address it:

There just are some things that even God cannot due since they cannot be done by definition:

As an example: God could not create a being that has always existed (which means God could not create another Christ.)

It isn't necessary to be "uncreated" to be righteous. See my comment about God creating beings with the "communicable attributes of godliness". See also the quote by Blake Ostler in a previous post.

.Christ did not have to obtain Godly type Love, since Christ always had Godly type Love, but how can a created being obtain Godly type Love?

Are you saying that it is impossible for a created being to have godly love? I can quote some scriptures for you that say that we can and will.

Are you saying that God's love, which is instinctive, is just robotic?

Who is holding the shotgun at God? When instinctive and genuine love are inherent in an individual, that does not mean that it is forced.

-7up

[seven7up]

The real problem is that you treat them as two completely separate entities. I do not. Therefore, my position does not suffer from that problem.

Says Bill, the modalist.

Bill the Trinitarian would have to admit that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons, have a relationship from eternity. However, a relationship is nonsensical without a sequence of events (some kind of time flow and back and forth between persons).

7up wrote: Eternal matter was the ONLY idea prior to the mid to end of second century A.D.

No it wasn't. May himself admits "The idea of the universe's ontological origination from God is not evident in Scripture"

That quote doesn't say what you think it does Bill.


Overview: The thesis is advanced that the doctrine arose in the second century CE, and that the Gnostic Basilides was the first to advance the idea as a theory. In the Christian mainstream a shift took place between Justin Martyr, who accepted the notion of pre-existent matter, and Theophilus of Antioch. It was the impact of fresh philosophy which stimulated this specific theoretical response to the question of how and whence things came into being, as distinct from the scriptural affirmation that things which did not exist before had been fashioned or formed by almighty God, the King of the Universe.

Paul the Apostle says in scripture that God created the Universe "out of things not seen". This is not the same thing as "out of nothing". "Out of nothing" is never found in scripture.

Sorry, but no. Plato and Aristotle both postulated eternal matter. Plato , in Timaeus listed eternal matter as "formless and free". Aristotle in Physics called eternal matter "the formless before receiving form". F.F. Bruce explained that eternal matter was of Hellenistic origin, not Hebrew.

It wasn't Hellenistic OR Hebrew. It was simply what EVERYBODY believed across the board in every philosophical discipline and every religion. The current conception of God being the "single substance" did not exist before it was "developed". Even the few quotes outside of scripture where you see people saying "out of nothing" prior to the invention of the doctrine, you find that the context demonstrates they are actually talking about something, but it is something chaotic, unformed and vague, and thus called "nothing". Ex Nihilo did not develop until the mid to end of the second century A.D. Every unbiased scholar has come to this same conclusion.

You misunderstood what I spoke of concerning how ex nihilo was essentially borrowed from Platonic philosophy. The "Greek philosophical monotheistic God" was the single substance which is the ONLY uncaused Being/Substance in existence. Those who developed Ex Nihilo simply changed it to be the ONLY uncreated Being/Substance in existence. It is simply a slight twist in the theology, which made Ex Nihilo a novel invention, but also easily adopted into the Greek/Roman culture because it was very similar (and compelling). It was compelling because creating "out of nothing" SEEMS IMPRESSIVE. But little did they know, ... that it is a philosophical nightmare.

7up: Contrary to that, I am saying that there are infinite uncaused causes.

And the can of worms that opens is rather large.

No it isn't. Early on, I gave you the quote from David Ray Griffin, which sums it up nicely.

I know that. But that is the strawman you were attempting to attribute to my beliefs. You were conflating the two when trying to argue against my position. It failed then, and it still fails.

But when you were trying to dissect what I was arguing, you were conflating the two. That's the whole point I was making in the other thread, and that I am continuing to claim here. You keep arguing that my belief uses foreknowledge and causation the same way. it doesn't.

I never conflated the two. I always argued that Ex Nihilo is causative. I gave two arguments:

1) Ex nihilo requires God to create certain kinds of beings and/or individuals with certain characteristics. Every single aspect of every single individual is entirely designed and created by God in this theology, therefore, God is culpable for each individuals flaws. The very nature of man (which is represented in Adam and Eve by ignorance, disobedience, and being easily deceived) was created from God's own mind.

Ex Nihilo is the problem. Not foreknowledge.

2) In the dice example, I clearly laid out the idea that IF the six-sided cube have existed from eternity, God may have foreknowledge of what the combination may be, but that foreknowledge does not cause any specific combination to exist.

Again, the foreknowledge, in and of itself, is not the problem.

7up: So, you were forced to get around this by saying that essentially that our WILLS exist from eternity.

In God's mind, they do. Not as separate entities, but as knowledge He possesses. ... I have never claimed that we exist as actual separate entities separate from God! You really aren't able to follow that simple claim...?

I followed it perfectly and I provided the quote that addresses that claim very specifically. Perhaps the quote is just too far over your head:

"Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make. But since these cannot be causally traced back to God, in Arminianism, the essence of who we are that our choices flow from, and thus reveal and express, must also be unable to be traced back to God or his creative activity. Whatever God created ex nihilo when he created human beings, he thus did not create that which constitutes the real essence of our being and character. So we can see that, in Arminian theology, the main implications of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo are negated and the doctrine itself is thus, in effect, relegated to practical unimportance, since the most important part of who we are, that which defines our primary essence, is not created by God, but is self-existent or self-created appropriate for such entities in Arminianism, although Arminians, being less consistent and developed in their theology, usually do not clearly see this and avoid the term because of its obvious clash with more classical theistic aspects of their thinking that they do not want to wholly or explicitly jettison."

You "jettisoned" the classical theism which I was criticized, which emphasized sovereignty, and the idea that only God's mind and will is eternal.

7up wrote: The only difference is that you say that our wills, choices, etc existed eternally in God's mind, rather than wills/intelligences that have always existed outside of God's mind in reality.

As knowledge, that is correct.

It doesn't matter, because according to your explanation, our wills effectively coeternal with God's will. Our wills, which existed outside time (whether as knowledge or not), are effective in bringing about reality in time, just like God's will. You are saying that our will has power to bring about temporal realityGod can't do anything about it! As Hausam explains above, "the main implications of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo are negated and the doctrine itself is thus, in effect, relegated to practical unimportance."

7up: You retreated into your PanEntheistic view, so there was nothing left to discuss.

Sure it is. PanEntheism says that while God exists outside of the created reality, God IS ALSO the created reality. In this case, God's mind becomes the created reality.

With your theology, God's mind and will becomes a multiple personality of 3 divine persons AND billions of coeternal non-divine persons/wills existing within God's mind. This multi-personality then becomes "actuated" within time and the Universe as creation. God is outside the created reality, and then is expressed as the created reality.

Your God cannot decide what kind of beings he will create, cannot decide what their characteristics will be, etc. We discussed this before:

7up: Let's say that God decided not to create Adam and Eve, but instead two different individuals, Bob and Sara.

Bill: Ok.

7up: Would they have fallen as well?

Bill: No clue. They never existed in God's mind, so they were never actuated

7up: If so, why? If not, why did God create Adam and Eve instead of Bob and Sara?

Bill: Because Adam and Eve were who God imagined, not Bob and Sara.

The Universe is simply an outward expression of God's own multipersonalitied mind. PanENtheism.

That's correct. Or else He would know something that was false, which is not possible considering the definition of perfect foreknowledge. I'll make it REEEEAL simple for you. How do you think Jesus knew the rooster would crow three times? Lucky guess? Perhaps He had the Holy Ghost goose the rooster thrice to make His prediction come true?

I personally don't have a problem with the idea that God has foreknowledge by MAKING THINGS HAPPEN, rather than "perfect foreknowledge". That is a possibility within my theological framework.

7up wrote: Kind Debater made complaints about you and cow poke and other posters there to other moderators. Those complaints were ignored (she complained how rude , unChrist -like, and unreasonable you are). She and I finished our conversation elsewhere.

So, it was just MY threads you ran from. Got it.

It was Kind Debator who persuaded me to discontinue the discussion with you. We both left the forum altogether (because you are "moderator" over there). As a fellow, Christian, she didn't like how you were representing Christianity (not just in ideas/doctrine, but your attitude and personality).

-7up

[seven7up]

Originally Posted by seven7up: No, I get it. But what YOU don't get is that your theory here still means that OUR WILL, even as God's foreknowledge, is just as effective and at creating reality as God's will.

Bill responds: Wrong. Our will does not create. It is the blueprint by which God creates. Do the blueprints build the house, or does the builder? DO the blueprints have any ability to lift a brick? To spackle the drywall? To lay the insulation?

Who is in charge? The architects who make the blueprints, or the builders? Bill is arguing that WE make the blueprints with our will, and God is forced to make it into reality within time and space. Thus the end of Bill's classical theism and his Sovereign God!

Welcome to non-traditional Christianity Bill. You can now call yourself a "process theologian".

Traditional theism has always held that energy or power is eternal. But it hypothesized that this power all essentially belonged to God alone, and was at some point all embodied in God. I share the view of those who hold instead that power has always existed in non-divine actualities as well as in the divine actuality. - Process theology as discussed by David Ray Griffin in Creation Out of Chaos
and the Problem of Evil ; emphasis added)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do the dice freely choose their path and end, or is their path and end determined by the roller?

The dice are truly random. They are "free" to randomly roll any number on any roll.

The path is NOT determined by the roller.

Its not a sound analogy 7up, equating the roll of the dice with the path that people take and then asserting that their choices along that path to be free choices doesn't make them so.

I am not saying that free will is the same as randomness. The analogy is simply meant to demonstrate that foreknowledge, in and of itself is not causative. Foreknowledge, in and of itself, does not cause any particular combination to be rolled.

Now, If God knows before hand what combination will be rolled AND God can decide which dice to create out of nothing (and which ones not to create), then that does determine outcomes.

-7up

[seven7up]

I don't believe in free will, but even assuming free will exists, it can't be denied that environment has some impact.

The personality/character of an individual is the greatest impact. One person in a certain situation will do something entirely different than another person who is in that exact same situation.

The problem with Ex Nihilo is that God ultimately is responsible for creating the personality/character AND the environment. That is absolute control!

-7up