Debate Teacher Reacts: Frank Turek vs. David Silverman

Shows. Uh-huh. David let me don't clap for anything in this audience. This guy doesn't care at all.

About how he comes across to the audience he's his eyes. Look at this person's facial expression in response. It's amazing. Look at this look. He's just not happy at all with people in the audience. That's i actually respect that.

I respect that quite a bit like i'm. You be quiet. I'm just talking to him right now. Welcome back to another episode of debate. Teacher reacts. My name is nate and i'm the president of a christian organization called wise disciple where we help you become the effective christian that you were meant to be.

Before i jumped into ministry i taught debate and so i look at theology and apologetics debate from a teacher's perspective and i adjudicate from that perspective kind of talk some inside baseball along the way.

Guess what i call balls and strikes when i see them. That means sometimes the christians win and sometimes the atheist wins. Well today let's look at a debate that originally was one of the first to ever be requested on this channel.

I went back to the list of suggestions and realized that some of the like the original requests like a couple of years ago they've actually slipped through the cracks. This one is frank turek versus david silverman.

The topic is what better explains reality theism or atheism. Now if you haven't seen the videos that i made on formal debate rules and the burden of proof i encourage you to go watch those and i'll give a link to them below because it appears that in the video that we're about to see both interlocutors shoulder their own burden.

All right now you got to watch the whole debate in order to figure out who actually did and who outperformed the other uh in the fuller debate. But we are going to zoom in on cross examination. That's where all the magic happens.

That's what i used to tell my students in the classroom. You can either shine very quickly or suck very badly all in a matter of seconds in cross examination. So let's go there.

The Burden of Proof and the Cross-Examination Setup

Right now david you were just talking about uh leaving a kid in an orphanage rather than putting it with a gay couple is immoral. I thought you just told us that there is no such thing as objective morality.

Is it immoral or you just don't like it. No i said it was no such thing as objective morality. I said all morality is relative. So why are you. Why are you objecting to somebody who doesn't want to put a kid with a homosexual couple.

Then why are you objecting to that. If there's no we have the right to object. We are always doing that. Okay we're always making these choices. It's not wrong to say that i'm making my independent choices independent of any other book or any other holy book.

We all make the same moral choices. I find it wholly immoral.

According to what. So this question comes up in various ways coming from the christian apologetics side right. Why object. If you don't think that there is such a thing as objective morality why even say anything at all the way that the question is worded especially here is unhelpful.

So i don't think turk's off to a great start. And the reason is when you ask the question that way it appears that you're suggesting that if you don't think morality is objective then just sit down and be quiet.

And that's kind of how silverman is responding here. And silverman's right you know he can say what he wants as a moral subjectivist. Being fair to turk maybe what turk is trying to ask is well what do you mean by immoral.

Because when you just say the word it doesn't really provide much clarity. And also if your standard is relative which is what silverman says what is the basis for it. You know is it social contract theory.

Is it something else. So let's see how.

Silverman responds. What standard. Your own. According to my standards. Oh well that's okay. That's exactly the same way you do it. Okay. Well but is is are you condemning somebody else for having a different relative standard than you.

No. I'm saying we all have to take responsibility for our moral judgments. We are all making those decisions in real time. Just like you are. Okay. The same reason that you're not going into leviticus and saying and let's kill the gays.

That's immoral to you and me. We're making that relative moral decision. You're supporting your relative moral decision. With makeup. With. With. With. Uh with the bible. With other bible quotes that you're finding.

Yeah. But you're so.

Silverman isn't helping himself here so when he says you need to take responsibility for your actions to whom would you do that. The government. God you can't just say the phrase take responsibility and then just let it float out there in the ether you know as if it's just disconnected from a standard that actually holds you responsible and silverman so far has not clearly identified the standard.

If i had to guess he probably agrees with social contract theory but he just hasn't.

Clearly said it. Yet you're confusing the decision with the existence of a moral standard. You're saying that there is no moral standard. Or there is a standard objective outside of humanity to which we should obey.

There is no objective moral standard. We are responsible for our own responsible to who. To ourselves and to our society. Which society mother theresa's or hitler's. The society in which we live. Okay.

So you. Yes this is not an easy question. So at norenberg then we really had no right to convict the nazis of obeying their government. We as a world society judge our criminals and we judge them as we see fit.

I know we judge them. So you're saying we just judge them based on our preferences. You know in some cultures they take care of their babies. In other cultures they eat their babies. Which do you prefer.

I prefer the ones where they take care of the babies. I also prefer the ones where they where the nazis don't do terrible things under the.

Name of god but it's just a preference. So first of all the way silverman speaks is a little unclear. When he says that we are all responsible for our own actions it sounds like he's speaking individualistically which seems to imply that we live according to our own moral standard.

But then he says that we're responsible to ourselves and to society which then seems to imply that we live according to something like social contract theory. And in social contract theory the desire of the individual is oftentimes overruled by societal standards you don't get to just do whatever you want even in social contract theory.

So like which is it. I think if i were turk i would be zooming in on this line of questioning before i ask anything else. Yes okay so you're it's.

An opinion. Okay if it's just an opinion you're saying then if it's just an opinion i don't know why you condemn a christian couple for not wanting to put a baby with a homosexual. Because that's just their morality that they have every right to express themselves they have every right to do it.

I'm saying it's a wholly immoral position. According to who according. I hate to keep interrupting so.

Frequently. But the the real issue here is not being articulated. The the real issue that turk and silverman they're just going back and forth over right now is really authority. If morality is relative as silverman says then by what authority can you tell somebody else that they're wrong.

Turk keeps mentioning the word standard. I mean i guess yeah. But really what they're talking about is authority. Now according to christians god's word is the authority and if you violate that then you violate god's authority over your life.

If you're a materialist which i don't know silverman hasn't really said that he is but i mean he certainly speaks as one. Um so i think that's what he is. You know if you're a materialist and you're an advocate of social contract theory then authority comes from social agreement right.

But that's not how silverman is speaking. He jumps back and forth between individual responsibility and then social responsibility. But he doesn't identify the authority that someone like him needs to tell somebody else that what they're doing is immoral.

And if i were turk i would really try to press him on that to me. Well.

Okay. Well that's just it's all according to us. We all make our own moral decisions. Yeah i understand. The only difference between you and me is that i take responsibility for my moral decisions. And you justify your moral decisions by finding a passage in the bible that matches your moral decisions and saying aha it's objective morality.

Well if there is no objective morality then we have it's even hard to talk this way because we say we have no right. But that implies a moral standard too. No. We have a societal right society. According to you.

Or according to hitler. According the government that we create. Yes. Okay. Well then we had no real way to condemn the nazis for what they did. That's the hard. The hard answer is you're correct. The hard answer is it is a matter of opinion.

The hard answer is they thought they were doing objective good. They did. Well they may condemn them as a society but you know we do this all the time. Yeah. They may have thought they were doing good but they really weren't according to a standard.

But the according to whose standard. The the unchanging objective moral standard. That is god's nature. And they they did it under the name of god. Well there's a lot of people that you you don't judge a philosophy or a religion by its abuse.

David jesus never said that we ought to go kill the jews. Quite obviously he was a jew himself. You should know that. Yeah. Okay. So. So so be. Because people have abused religion doesn't mean that the religion is false.

The fact that people have abused religion shows you that morality is relative if it was objective.

You couldn't abuse it. No you're confusing. Sociology and that's interesting. Let me hear.

That one more time the fact that people have abused religion shows you that morality is.

Relative if it was objective you couldn't abuse it. No you're confusing. What does that mean. Is that a statement about inability or is that a statement about knowledge. In other words is that about not having the free will to stray from objective moral principles.

Or is that about not being able to get away with abusing objective moral standards because everybody would know what that objective standard is and then call you out when you deviate from it. Right. And if it's that second option you know that's the one that is true.

Well then isn't that what silverman is doing by calling the nazis immoral. He knows that it's objectively wrong what they did and he's calling them out for deviating from that objective standard right.

So this is the difficulty of debate. And you know it's easy to fall into here because your heart's beating your thoughts are racing up on that stage. But if you're not very precise with your words in a debate you lose the opportunity to strengthen your own.

Argumentation seen. Sociology and morality. Sociology is how people behave. Morality is how they ought to behave. We all ought to behave a certain way but we fail to by the way. That's why.

We need a savior zing. You're clapping for that. Really you're clapping for that. Okay go ahead.

Okay now we're gonna switch david. You can keep going or you can ask frank. Oh no first cross is.

Done. You know it's kind of hard to say who has the advantage here. I i think both uh interlocutors could have communicated more clearly. Uh turek did focus on silverman's statements and opening a rebuttal.

That's what you're supposed to do in a debate. Um and silverman didn't respond very well to turks questions although he did get a nice zinger in there about the nazis being religious right walking around with the saying on their on their belt buckle.

I don't know this is kind of oh it's kind of difficult after first cross. Let's just wait and see how second cross goes. Now let's.

The Problem of Evil and Natural Suffering

Let's go on to evil. Because you know you brought up the word evil and you said i'm supposed to bring up the word evil and then you totally eliminated and went around the problem of evil. So i want to talk a little bit about the problem of evil.

You said that in order that evil proves god because objective evil proves objective. Good. Yeah. I'm telling you there's no objective evil either. Well then what are you complaining about. What i'm complaining about is i i want to know about the real problem of evil that christianity faces.

If god is all powerful and omniscient and omnibenevolent why does he need babies to be born with cancer. Okay now actually what you're talking about here is a theological question that can be answered if the scriptures are true by going to the scriptures.

But we're not for the dancing. Listen for the dance. We've got an all-powerful god. He can he can do whatever he wants and he doesn't need babies to have cancer. We've got an all-knowing god so he knows every baby that's going to get cancer.

Now the only thing left is benevolence. Define benevolence. And tell me why a god who can do anything under any circumstances needs babies with cancer. Excellent question. A part of me.

Actually appreciates that silverman and turek are not extremely precise in their words. I used to teach literature as well as debate and so i think that poetry trades on figurative language and figurative language requires imprecise non-clinical forms of speech which that's like a whole separate channel you know for that kind of discussion but there's like a a real um sense of musicality and poetic flourish that turek and silverman used when they talk.

And maybe that's just a long island in them. You know i mean so anyway when silverman says i don't believe in objective evil but let's talk about the real problem of evil with regard to christianity. It sounds like he's saying i don't believe in evil but let's talk about real evil.

Right. That's that's weird. But probably what he's getting at is let's internally critique the christian worldview. Does it make sense for christianity to really say three things. You know number one god is all powerful.

Number two god is good and number three god kills babies with cancer. So there's the dilemma right. Turek says well in order to do that we need to go to the bible. And i think he's right. If it's an internal critique of the christian worldview that we're really after here well then we need to take the full worldview into account to see if it makes sense or if it contradicts itself.

The reality is a lot of atheists when they critique the christian worldview they they stay half in and half out of their own worldview. They put one foot. It's the it's the hokey pokey they put one foot in to the christian worldview they keep their other foot out into the atheist worldview.

And so in the atheist worldview when you die you cease to exist. And that's really bad. Right. That makes 80 years on this planet the most important thing that you would ever do in the christian worldview when you die it's not over.

You step into eternity. And eternity now comes into the equation and dwarfs 80 years on this planet eternity actually undercuts the force of the atheist argument because death isn't really that big of a deal if eternity exists.

But that's what you got to do. If you really want to critique the view then you have to concede eternal life. The fact is if a child of god suffers and dies here on earth they don't cease to exist. They go to eternal life with god.

And eternal life reduces suffering on earth down to an infinitesimal degree. The bible calls this momentary and light affliction in light of eternity. So the internal critique doesn't work in my opinion because you have to include eternal life.

If you're going to be fair in your critique against the christian worldview. And you know maybe some atheists are like well eternal life is just a cop out. Because it's just an ad hoc way for christians to minimalize suffering all.

Right. But see that's why the internal critique of the problem of evil doesn't work. And when an atheist kind of says that they're showing that they recognize at some level that it really doesn't work.

But let's see how turic.

Responds i know we live in a fallen world don't we. That's a good excuse. Well but you can't you can't blame adam. What if it's true. Oh what if anything is true. The question is why do we need. Why do we need.

Why does god need babies to be born with cancer. Hold on please. There's another part of.

Me that doesn't like imprecise language you know. At least you know not when it's time to be more precise which is definitely in debates and silverman is speaking imprecisely. It's a category error to say that god needs any being that has a need is by definition not the christian god.

Properly understood. Let me let me. God doesn't need it god might allow it because he's omnibenevolent. Okay. Yeah. Hold on. Let's let's get there let's get to the benevolent. I can't i i i can't say anything better than this one minute and 46 second video which i'm going to show you and hopefully i don't want a video i want you to tell me oh i will tell you because i'm telling you through this video.

Okay so stand by i think we need uh hdm. I've never seen someone play a video in response to a question during cross-examination before.

This is uh this is a first it is. Hey stand by.

Doesn't even have it queued up yet. All right. This better be good man.

It's gonna be good if it's not good i'm totally gonna kick your butt. Hey there's no such thing as good. It's all relative. It is all relative. All right. You gotta listen you gotta watch closely. David i'm sorry you got a bad angle here but you really got to watch closely.

You right guys. Ready.

Free Will, Foreknowledge, and the Garden of Eden

To go we got sound here we go. Is god good. If he is why is there suffering and evil. Let's assume for the moment that god is all-powerful. This means that god can do anything that is logically possible.

So he can create galaxies and subatomic particles and rainforests and you. But god cannot do what is logically impossible. He cannot make a square circle or a one-ended stick. So can god make a rock so big that he can't lift it.

No so what if when god created human beings he wanted them to be free. Freedom's a good thing but if humans are to be free.

They cannot be forced to obey god. So if this whole video is on the free will defense for the existence of evil in the world which is how some christians respond to the problem of evil that evil exists because mankind chooses using their freedom their free will to choose to do evil then this is totally missing silverman's point.

Silverman is asking about cancer. Hopefully ture can get to the real issue because so far this is not a great response. Because freedom without.

Choice is like a square circle. It's a logical contradiction no choice no freedom. God didn't want robots he wanted real people. The first humans endowed with the awesome power of free choice abuse their freedom.

The tragic consequences of their bad choice and our bad choices ripple across the world. God is responsible for the fact of freedom but humans are responsible for their acts of freedom. But let's remember we don't suffer alone.

God will put an end to suffering and evil and god became a man to suffer with us. God is good and he wants real people like you to know him but the free choice is yours. So the ultimate answer to the question is we have free.

Will. And why do we have free will. Because that's the only way we can have love. Free will. Yes. Free. You're actually saying god wants babies to be born with cancer so that we can have free will. We couldn't have free will if babies didn't have cancer.

No. No. No i'm not. What i'm not what i'm saying is the entrance of evil into the universe was a result of free choice and the reason we had free choice was because that's the only way we could have love.

But this also creates the possibility for evil. The entrance of evil into the universe was the result of free choice. Yes. Let's talk about that for a second. Okay. Adam and eve are in the garden of eden and god is there with.

Okay. Okay. I'm sorry you brought it up. Yeah. Yeah. I'm allowed to do this. I understand. You want to keep going on this. Yeah. I want. I want to finish the thought here on evil if you don't mind. Yeah.

Let's keep doing this. Because this is good stuff. Okay. All. Right. Because when it comes down to it adam and eve are in the garden of eden with god and god is omniscient and god knows the future and god puts the tree of knowledge of good and evil in spot x.

Yes. And when he does that he's omniscient and he knows sure that adam is going to eat that fruit. Yeah. He knows is going to put cause the fall of man and billions of souls will go to hell. And according to you babies will start being born with cancer.

Okay. If he puts the tree of knowledge over here it doesn't happen. Or if he doesn't put it there at all it doesn't happen. But god puts it where he knows with 100 certainty that adam is going to eat of that fruit.

Who made that choice. God knows the end from the beginning.

The Limits of Omniscience and the Charge That God Caused Sin

So the question maybe some of you are probably asking is why is silverman spending so much time on this. Right. I mean if you're trying to think as a debater in terms of topicality you know are we still within the realm of the topic.

In turek's opener he talks about objective morality and then he links it to the existence of god that a good god is required in order for there to be objective good and evil. So silverman is spending time questioning one of the foundational tenets of the argument that god is really good.

Okay. And then turek mentions the garden of eden. I probably would not have if i were him and so then um silverman follows him down that path right. This is all an internal critique of the christian worldview and so far i would say that silverman has the upper.

Beginning. Yeah. And he created the universe and he created. What would he knew. What would happen anytime you want to answer the question. I'm getting there. But that doesn't mean people don't have free choice.

And you're saying that god then could not have done that if somebody sins. Well let me ask you a question. That's not what i said at all. What i asked you was who made the choice in the garden of eden.

You said adam and eve did. Adam and eve made the choice. Now let me ask a quick. Let me put it this way. God knows with 100 certainty that if i put the tree of knowledge here billions of souls go to hell and babies get cancer according to you.

Which doesn't follow either. But i'll let you pass. But. Wait wait wait. But if i put it over here. No no. Hold on hold on. No no. This is there's nothing wrong with babies getting cancer because it's all relative.

There's you know what i judge that i judge that. Well that's just your personal. But. No. No. If you allow me to continue with my presentation i'll go into another video. I want you to answer it's not another video.

Okay. Answer me. When god put the tree of knowledge of good and evil here instead of here knowing that when he put it here knowing with 100 certainty i got it. Let me answer it. Okay. Go for it. Here's here's here's the here's the problem.

The problem here david is that you're assuming that god could have created another universe where nobody sinned. That while it's logically possible it might not be actually achievable with free creatures.

So sin was not a sin was not an option. No sin. If god creates a universe with free creatures he might not be able to create a universe where everybody freely chooses not to sin. So he creates the universe.

We're in now people freely choose to sin. And then his job the whole purpose of the bible. And we're not really even here to talk about the bible. But since you brought it up the whole theme of the bible from genesis to maps is one word.

And that is redemption. You have paradise lost in genesis paradise regained in revelation. You are totally avoiding everything. No i'm. I'm getting adam ate that apple. He was without sin. Yes. Before he went he was without sin.

God put the tree here. Yes. He knew it would fall of man. God pushed adam and eve out of the garden of eden. God made the decision. Yes. I made the choice. And then god made the choice to go in and rescue him.

So that's what the redemption is all about. God chose. Uh-huh. David let me. They'll clap for anything in this audience. Let me god is the villain here. God is this guy doesn't.

Care at all about how he comes across to the audience. He's he's his eyes you when you see is when people clap. For a lot of these debates take place in churches and so when the christian says something that christians like from the audience and they clap look at this person's facial expression in response.

It's amazing. Look at this look. He's not happy at all with people in the audience. That's i actually respect that. I respect that quite a bit. Like i'm you be quiet i'm just.

Talking to him right now. That's good. David. Let me. They'll clap for anything in this audience. Let me. God is the villain. Here. God is. Wait. Stop. There's no villains because there's no good or evil.

You've already said the subject god is the one who made the choice. I'm not changing the subject. You said. Enter. Evil entered into the universe because of a choice. I'm submitting to you. Yeah. That.

It was not adam who made that choice. Who was it. It was god. Yes god made a choice. So god's a villain. God's the one who sent you to hell. God's the one who sends everybody to hell. God's the one who caused the fall of man.

And he did so with intent with deliberate. God is an ass. Nobody sends anybody to hell. You send yourself there. God sent you everybody to hell. That's good. But you're not listening to the argument. You're applauding david.

People who are in hell are there. Justly. Okay. Oh well. Who's justice. Well there is no justice according to your worldview. Okay.

Hang on one second. Yeah. Let's stop with the applause. Okay let's just stop with the applause so we can get more time in here. Okay we're getting a little off track. The topic we can't change.

So that did not go well for turek. If the topic is theism versus atheism you know what best explains reality turek should have stayed with the moral argument as soon as he talks about the bible then it becomes a conversation about interpretations of genesis which in my opinion puts the christian on his heels because almost always atheists mischaracterize the bible and then the christian has two jobs.

At that point the christian not only has to spend a lot of work on dealing with interpretation but then also providing an answer. And in terms of optics this looks bad. Silverman definitely has the advantage so far in this exchange.

What was. Which better explains reality.

Atheism or theism. Yeah that's why we're talking about the bible theology. It's fine if y 'all want to go there but that wasn't the topic but you still haven't made the just answer my question it's still you i still want to talk about this all right.

Let me let me continue. Well no it's.

Not my turn. That's right. No no. Wait. Who. Just you. He was asking me. It's his choice. Yeah. Okay. You still got 40 seconds. Go. I still got 40 seconds.

What i want to know is who if god made the choice to put the tree of knowledge here instead of here. Yeah isn't it true then that the sinless adam was merely a pawn. No. And that god made the choice to cause the fall of man because there's a faulty assumption in your scenario here.

You're assuming that if he puts it over here it doesn't happen. He knows if he he knows he's 100 for knowledge. Yes. So he knows that he puts it here. It happens. Let me finish it here david. Let me finish.

Yep it might.

Be that there's now it's uh your turn you can keep going or do you want to change the subject.

Giants are better than the patriots. Oh come on. They are oh come on. Yeah that's too far man that's too far. Where were we. Oh it might be that there's no other scenario whereby sin ultimately wouldn't.

Again let me say this again what is logically possible might not be actually achievable with free creatures. Okay that's the problem here. You're assuming that god could have created a universe where nobody ever sins.

Well if there are free creatures there might not be any universe whereby nobody ever sins. That's not my point at all. My point is that free will is eliminated. There is.

No such thing as free will if god is omniscient. So we have strayed from the question. The question which was meant to i think internally critique the christian worldview was what about baby cancer. And turek has not explained how adam's sin in the garden affects what is more generally known as natural evil.

Natural evil includes hurricanes uh tornadoes and even you know disease genetic defects animal suffering all those things. So silverman definitely is holding on to this thread and he doesn't want to let it go.

But if i were silverman i would ask turek to explain how you get from human choice which was turek's original answer to natural evil. He mentions it i think one time but that's what he should be really zooming in on at this point.

That is my point. No no.

God knew the future when he put the tree there. Look i knew you'd be here. Does that mean. I i knew. If if i drop this. If i drop this does it have a choice to fall. Yeah. But you see that that's not an agent.

We're agents. We make decisions. If i have a hundred percent foreknowledge and i know with one hundred percent certainty that if i put the tree of knowledge here it happens. And if i put the tree of knowledge here it doesn't happen.

If i have a hundred percent foreknowledge like your god supposedly does i would be the villain by putting it here instead of there because adam would have no choice. Because i have a hundred percent foreknowledge wait i have a hundred percent foreknowledge.

It's my time. It's my time. Hey it's my time. You play a video. I let you play a video. Yeah. It was cool. It was good. Well not by your point. Get to your point. My point is that you're.

Avoiding the subject. If you would let me answer all right now let him go for it again it might.

Not be actually achievable. You're assuming that if he puts it over here they're not going to sin. Well maybe if he puts it over there they are too. Let me also point this out. You didn't have to put it anywhere.

Well then there would be no creation. But you see compare. There would be a creation comparing a moral world to a non-world. There's there's there's no way to compare them. Okay. Now just because you know something doesn't mean that you're choosing or that the person doesn't have free will.

And you have a 16 year old daughter. You knew when you had her that she would sin one day. But you're not responsible for that sin yet. I don't have a hundred percent foreknowledge. I can't cause you knew she would sin because she's a human being.

Yet you chose to have her. These guys are from.

Where are they. New york. You know whatever. New jersey long island turic. Be careful bro. You you got a mother. Uh. Easy bro. Easy you got a. You got a daughter. Right. Careful bro.

Her. But adam was without sin. He was perfect. Yes. And he chose. But god can redeem didn't choose. He had no choice. Because god put the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Let me ask you adam would eat the fruit with a hundred percent.

Let's assume you love you love nfl football. Which i know you do. Okay. And one day uh your sunday you're away from the tv so you've got tivo and you record a whole bunch of games while you're away. Then on your way home you hear the scores on the radio and you go.

Oh i didn't want to hear the scores. Right. But then you come home and you you elect to watch the giants and the patriots and we know how that's going to turn out. Always turns out the right way. Every time.

Right now as you're watching the game you know what the score is going to be. But does that mean you're causing the players on the field to do what they do. Or do they still have free will. They don't have free will.

They don't have free will. The players playing football don't have free will. On the recording. No. On the recording they don't have free will. They're fictional. They're just a recording. No. Well i know the answer.

I know the score. No. Yeah. You know the answer. You know the score. But while they were playing they had free will. Here's the here's here's the point. The point is god's outside of time. So he knows the end from the beginning.

Just because he knows what we're going to do doesn't mean he's causing us directly to do it. We still have free will. Just like when you watch a football game after it's happened. They still have free will.

Even though you know this. But in the garden of eden god did cause it to happen because there has not been any sin. There was no uh there was no uh ambiguity to what adam would do if he put the tree of knowledge there.