Is this the best of all possibile worlds, /his/?
Memes aside, if we somewhat postulate the existence of God, could he create a perfect world? Or could he only settle for a balance between freedom and sin?
God did create a perfect world. We mucked it up.
Leibniz smokes crack.
>>313892
>best of all possible worlds
I would say that of all the possible worlds, we live in the reality which was created so we must assume it's perfection, otherwise we fall into gnosticism or cult to the chaos, which ends up being much more insane because subjectivism and idealism.
>>313892
No, god could not create a world with both maximum freedom and minimum sin because sin is a necessary product of free will.
>But why have free will if it causes so much suffering?
Because without free will there is no meaning or purpose to your life, from the perspective of a god why would you bother to create something without any personal responsibility.
It's like a parent and child relationship, or more accurately a creator and his robot. The ultimate goal isn't perfection out of the box, it's instilling your creation with enough self-reliance, responsibility and consciousness that it can stand on its own and doesn't need you anymore.
On that basis, if god were to treat us like we treat say microwaves - to fulfil a purpose with absolutely zero freedom or intelligence that would be infinitely more evil than for god to allow us to abuse our own responsibility.
Not only is this the best possible world, it's getting progressively better as the Idea actualizes itself.
t. G.H.
>>313933
But we will never know the end.
t. J.C.
>>313931
This is perfection then.
>>313946
Since it is incomplete, no.
>>313946
No, perfection and freedom in this instance are contradictory.
This universe would simply be a vehicle for you as an individual to become perfect yourself.
>>313973
>free will is not absolute freedom
I disagree, as far as I can see there is nothing humans are incapable of doing.
Why do you say this?
>>313987
>there is nothing humans are incapable of doing
Eh... almost everything.
We are mortal beings, only god has absolute freedom and even our freedom is given by God.
You can't make yourself free.
Your freedom is restricted to accepting or denying God, and if you deny God you're not free anymore.
>>314024
That isn't true though, there doesn't appear to be anything humans can't do, it isn't conditional.
Additionally accepting or denying god is just another arm of free will. And no matter what your decision is you're still free to act as you please.
>>314047
It seems you're denying something obvious. Freedom or free-will is a term that metaphisically means somehting like "being determined by nothing other than your own will", and this can be absolutized only in the character of God or the Creator of the Universe.
Any other definition of freedom is restricted to a determined field, objects and it's always blurry.
Human free-will is obviously not absolute freedom, but restricted and given by God, once all power derives from God.
>>314088
But that once again isn't true, you pulled that right out of your arse.
As simply as possible, just name yourself one thing humans can't will themselves to do.
>>314047
There appear to be many things humans can't do. Humans can't be stars. Humans can't be made of steel. Humans can't create something out of nothing. Humans can't be both alive and dead. A human can't be both taller and shorter than five feet. I'm not sure why you think there's literally nothing a human can't do.
>>314088
Free will isn't only given by God, but consists in doing God's will, i.e., that which is objectively the right thing to do. Human free will and God are bound together.
>>314102
We can't change the structure of reality.
>>314106
You could choose to try and do so, which is free will. You just don't have the power to do so, which is physical limitation.
God can't create a perfect world as Mosley never won
>>314104
This is what I was waiting for, all of those things themselves are contradictions in themselves. Humans cannot be made of steel because humans by nature aren't made from steel, humans can't be both living and dead because life and death are mutually exclusive.
Not even god could do such things.
>>314117
I don't think this is free-will but only will. It's lack of self-knowledge.
>>314164
He can but he wills not to do it. And his will is absolute.
>>314164
God could absolutely do such things. Christ had a body made of indestructible material after death. I also don't see why the fact that something is a logical contradiction invalidates my point that freedom of the will necessarily has to be exercised within certain conditions.
>>313892
>perfect world
The list of needless horrors is endless. Consider the abundance of poisonous and diseased food and water sources, as well as infertile or inhospitable land. No considerate civil engineer would include such things in any city he was building. Indeed, if he did so, he would have to be a villain with a very perverted sense of humor. And if he did so by some accident or limitation, he would hardly be worthy of the title “God.” Just imagine God telling you, as you walk into heaven asking what the hell was up with all that crap, “Oops! I didn’t think of that! Sorry. Couldn’t be helped. Did my best! No. No way to fix it now. My budget ran out!” What sort of God is that?
>>314200
> Christ had a body made of indestructible material after death
What?
Because logical contradictions are self-evident and unchangeable, they're external to man's decision to act in a certain way.
>>314223
>What?
I'm repeating what I was taught in Catholic school. My point is that God can create beings which look human but are made of steel, if He so chooses.
>Because logical contradictions are self-evident and unchangeable, they're external to man's decision to act in a certain way.
No they aren't. My knowledge that 'I am both taller and shorter than 5 feet' is a contradiction doesn't prevent me from feely attempting to act as if it were true.
>there doesn't appear to be anything humans can't do, it isn't conditional.
This is your claim in >>314047. If you want to modify it to say that humans can't perform logically contradictory actions and this doesn't impede the freedom of their will, fine.
>>314240
>I'm repeating what I was taught in Catholic school. My point is that God can create beings which look human but are made of steel, if He so chooses.
They aren't human though.
>No they aren't. My knowledge that 'I am both taller and shorter than 5 feet' is a contradiction doesn't prevent me from feely attempting to act as if it were true.
You can try and will it all you like, all the more power to free will. But you can't defy physics.
>If you want to modify it to say that humans can't perform logically contradictory actions and this doesn't impede the freedom of their will, fine.
Alright, that's what I was trying to convey.
>>314204
The fedora pic in my folder are streaming "Post me!" but since we're on /his/ I'll start a decent conversation anyway.
How can you, a puny human with limited reason and awfully short lifespan, compare your concept of "good" to the one of a (supposed) eternal, almighty and omniscent being? If such a being exists, all the horrors of the world would be in his project, therefore "good" for him. This would be the best of all possibile worlds because such a being made it.
>>314268
>How can you, a puny human with limited reason and awfully short lifespan, compare your concept of "good" to the one of a (supposed) eternal, almighty and omniscent being?
The absurdity of this charge is that it is far more arrogant to assume you know so much about God and his plans and limitations that you can confidently excuse him for being a do-nothing no-show—and not only that, but with clearly absurd excuses even a human can see are ridiculous, much less a god. It is also hypocritical to say it is arrogant to claim to know something, and then arrogantly claim to know that.
There is nothing arrogant in using reason, or in believing only what there is evidence and reason to believe. Nor is there anything arrogant in honestly stating what we see to be the case, which is all I have done. If God is a reasonable being, and the world is so strange that even God can’t explain why he appears not to exist, he could not in good conscience condemn an atheist for his unbelief, since unbelief is then entirely reasonable. And if God is neither reasonable nor compassionate, there can be no comfort in seeking his eternal company, for you would then be condemned to an existence almost as terrible as hell itself, forever wallowing in the misery of seeing billions of good people suffer a needless and cruel torment below, while shivering above in the shadow of a coldhearted, all-powerful lunatic. And that would truly be absurd.
>>314295
I litterally agree to most of the thing you said, you just changed the topic on the good old "I'm right to be atheist". Anyway, two things:
I never claimed to know anything about God. I just postulated him, wich is the only thing we can do.
Then, let me ask you a question. Since we're doomed to live an absurd life in a terribile world anyway, isn't it so much better to assume the existence of some higher purpose? From my point of view whoever decided how things go is a monstruous lunatic, but the enemy you know is better than the one you don't know. For many it's better to believe being toys of some higher being than just some dust in the wind, moreso if they postulate this being to be actually good, since the only things they can know about him is what they decided to believe.
>>314265
>They aren't human
Says who? If God wants to create steel humans, God will create beings which are essentially human, but made of steel.
>>314365
>isn't it so much better to assume the existence of some higher purpose?
No, I make my own purposes for my own reasons. I am not going to submit myself to the insanity of following the purposes of whoever invented those religions for their own reasons.
>>314369
Says us.
We have the necessary autonomy and consciousness to recognize that humans aren't made from steel.
>>314410
Have you literally never heard of possible worlds before? Are you literally incapable of conceiving that God could have created us so that we were made of steel and recognized ourselves as such? Are you literally saying that God lacks the power to create humans made of steel, or to ha e made a world in which all humans are made of steel? I'm genuinely curiou about your issue with the idea that God has absolute creative authority.
>>314427
Because they aren't human, they may be like humans. But humans as we are by necessity are based on carbon and largely made from water.
>>314374
>implying believing in God necessarily means following someone else's religion
How about just a world where the human spine is stronger so we don't get back problems later in life. Right because God didn't design shit, our spine is one of the faults of evolution.
>>314433
>by necessity
If we accept classical rheism, then everything about humans is merely possible. The only necessity is God. Again, I'm talking about a possible worlds scenario.
>>314444
>possible
I mean contingent, obviously.
>>314444
I disagree, I don't see how omnipotence bestows the power to create contradictory things.
>>314436
Why on earth would I invent my own god just to justify my purposes? I should use reason to justify my purposes.
>>314464
The concept of a steel human isn't contradictory. The problem is that you're equating physical, metaphysical, and logical possibility. It is logically possible that God could have created human beings made of steel, even if this isn't physically the case. There's nothing contradictory in the sentence 'an omnipotent being can create beings which are human and made of steel.' An omnipotent being has control over human nature; I hope you wont contest this point. A theist believes that every element of the essence of humanity is so only because God wills it to be so. God did not create such beings, but to say that He can't is to contradict His omnipotence. Again, this is a counterfactual argument.
>>314444
>then everything about humans is merely possible
This doesn't explain why things are the way they are rather than some other way though. I think the multiverse hypothesis explains this much better than the God hypothesis. In the realm of cosmology, the debate between theism and atheism is really only a quibble over details. Both sides agree there must be some ultimate entity, which is the eternal first cause and ground of all being, the end point of all explanations. They only disagree over what properties this “ultimate being” has. Theists think it has a whole plethora of amazing powers and attributes, including the most complex mind imaginable. But as atheists point out, there is no evidence for any of those tacked-on assumptions. There are only two properties we can be sure the ultimate being has: its nature is to exist, and it had a reasonable chance of producing our universe exactly as we see it. We can’t say anything more than that without sufficient evidence. And there is no actual evidence for any of the traditional divine attributes.
>>314487
This whole post makes no sense to me. What does the multiverse hypothesis have to do with anything? Also theism isn't a hypothesis, it's not accurate to refer to it as something that can be tested by the modern scientific method.
>>314484
>>314484
Of course god could have done it, but he didn't. This is the point of contention.
God created humans in their current form, giving rise to the current definition of what it means to be human. He could have done it any way he liked, but what's done is done, and in our irreversible human view the status of a human is concrete.
>>314505
No, there is no point of contention if you admit that God could have acted that way. My point all along has been that God could do it, not that there is an actual world in which steel humans exist.
>>314473
It's not about justifying purposes. It's about aknowledging the limits of your reason and deciding your own believes in matters that your reason couldn'tcouldn't investigate. If what little your reason can understand is enough for you fine, enjoy your little hamster box, I don't want to give away metaphysics, I'm not fully satisfied without them. Call it a philosophycal suicide if you will, it's better than living a depressing and pointless life.
>>314501
The important questions on this matter are why this Big Bang happened at all, and why it produced this particular universe, rather than some other. And this is where “God did it” is now often proposed. But it is an awkward fit. What does God need a Big Bang for? That’s a terribly slow, messy, complicated way to create a universe, much less people. Why the long, complex process of condensation from energy to matter to stars to galaxies? Why the vast expanse of the end result? You would think a god would simply create the whole universe at once, or much more quickly at least, and only make it as large as would suit us. There would be no need of long drawn-out processes, nor of other planets or galaxies, much less all the hundreds of subatomic particles we know of.
“God did it” doesn’t predict any of these things, nor does it explain them very well. God has no need of quarks, for example, or neutrinos, or galaxies, or billions of years of slow, mechanical processes. Nor can we make any predictions about any of these things from the “God did it” hypothesis. Can we deduce from “God did it” how many types of quark there are? Or that there should even be quarks? Or how long it would take that god, from the initial moment of creation, to make a human being? Or that there would be such things as galaxies? Or such thongs as neutrinos?
Sure, you might invent a vast and clever array of detailed assumptions about a god or his plans that could predict or explain all this, or you can resort to something vacuous like “God’s ways are a mystery,” but either way you would only be making the god hypothesis less plausible than any naturalist theory that already predicts and explains all these strange things. And there are several theories that do that. Scientists are testing them even as we speak. The god hypothesis, by contrast, makes few if any testable predictions.
>>314509
My point relates to human free will and the way in which they choose to act, which of course is exclusive to this world..
>>314551
>>314551
>What does God need a Big Bang for? That’s a terribly slow, messy, complicated way to create a universe, much less people.
Says the guy who hasn't yet explained what the multiverse theory has to do with anything. I don't see how this disproves theism or even makes it seem less likely to be true.
>“God did it” doesn’t predict any of these things, nor does it explain them very well. God has no need of quarks, for example, or neutrinos, or galaxies, or billions of years of slow, mechanical processes.
According to whom?
>God hypothesis
There's that inappropriate term again.
>predictions
I'm unsure why you think theistic belief should be expected to predict things in the same way that physics or chemistry do. It seems like the kind of thing most people stop demanding as soon as they realize that religion and science have completely different aims and do t even try to answer the same set of questions in anything resembling a unified
>>314554
If God can create beings with free will in this world, why wouldn't He be able to do so in other possible worlds?
>>314607
Unified terminological or methodological framework*
>>314607
The multiverse explains everything that exists, and so even from the start it is just as good as “God did it.” It is even better than that, since the multiverse fits and follows from known scientific facts, and it makes the exact features of this universe highly probable—whereas there is no reason to believe this is the universe a god would probably make, nor is there any evidence that a god actually did any of the making. Of course one could ask why the multiverse exists at all, and why it has the exact properties it does. But something must exist without any explanation at all, so it may as well be the multiverse. For if a god can exist unexplained, with all his convenient attributes, then so can the multiverse. Both solutions leave the same questions unanswered. But we find the god hypothesis leaves far too many more questions unanswered. So we take the multiverse instead, as our ultimate “brute fact.”
In fact, the multiverse is a simpler explanation than god, because it has all those attributes of god sufficient to ground its own being and cause this universe to exist, minus all that stuff about intelligence, knowledge, desires, or omnipotent powers. So it does the same work with less baggage. For example, the multiverse is eternal, in the sense that it exists at every point of time that exists, has existed, or ever will exist. And for that reason it did not come “from” anywhere. There was never a time when it did not exist, so it did not come from “nothing,” because there has never been “nothing.” There has always been “something,” from which every universe is born. And yet, having no knowledge or intentions or supernatural powers, the multiverse is a much simpler entity than a god—requiring fewer unproven assumptions.
Therefore, I believe it is most probable that a mindless multiverse exists, has always existed, and exists by nature.
>>314648
Why does the multiverse exist, though? And what if there is only one universe?
>But something must exist without any explanation at all, so it may as well be the multiverse.
What the fuck kind of reasoning is this?
>>314675
>Why does the multiverse exist, though?
It is in its natures to exist.
>And what if there is only one universe?
There is only one. You misunderstand the multiverse theory. the multiverse is a single entity, not many. The existence of countless ‘universes’ or ‘regions’ within the multiverse is actually entailed by a very small and simple set of assumptions, a far simpler set than that required to make sense of a god. Of course, all of those assumptions are more or less supported by at least some evidence, whereas none of the peculiar assumptions about a god are. But even besides that, once you accept the basic elements of Chaotic Inflation, the existence of countless universes follows necessarily. It does not have to be assumed. So these theories really involve only one or two leaps of speculation, since the rest is grounded in established scientific facts. In contrast, god’s attributes comprise a rather lengthy laundry list of speculations, unsupported by any science. And that is why, as explanations go, a multiverse is simpler than a god.
>What the fuck kind of reasoning is this?
See >>314487
>>314720
>It is in its natures to exist.
>There is only one
So you're literally just saying 'The universe exists because it is the nature of the universe to exist.' This is a proposition that most scientists wouldn't necessarily reject, but they'd probably tell you that it has almost no explanatory power at all. The other post of yours you linked to displays one of the most juvenile understandings of what religious belief is supposed to explain that I've ever seen.
>one or two leaps of speculation
Way more than someone who cares as much about the scientific explanatory power of a theory should be comfortable with. I don't see why you present this as an alternative to theism, either.
>>314758
Also, if there's only one, why call it the multiverse and not the universe? Because you know that your theory would literally just be a set of tautologies if you didn't use the misleading 'multi' prefix?
>>314758
>it has almost no explanatory power at all.
It has huge explanatory power, as outlined here >>314648
>Way more than someone who cares as much about the scientific explanatory power of a theory should be comfortable with
I don’t claim this as anything more than a good hypothesis. But I believe it is more probably true than any other explanation so far, because it is the simplest and most plausible answer, explaining the most things by appealing to the fewest unknowns. And it fits. The theory that our universe had a mindless physical cause perfectly predicts the universe we observe: a dispassionate, mechanical, mindless, physical cosmos. It makes complete sense of why we are made of frail matter, why life developed through a long and messy process of evolution, why the universe is so big and old, why we can never find any good evidence of supernatural beings or events, and so on. Since this is a plausible, comprehensible explanation for the universe, until we discover some evidence that challenges it, there is no need to resort to any alternative. And until some facts are discovered that better support some other hypothesis, there is no reason to look for any other.
>>314764
Why call it a Big Bang if it wasn't actually a bang? Sometimes names just stick and that's what we use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
>>314767
>as outlined here >>314648 #
You literally claim that some things are inexplicable. You explicitly limit the things you're willing to try to explain. The multiverse is where you draw a line, and I don't understand why it shouldn't be explainable. Do you just take issue with the idea of the Big Bang occurring in a causal vaccuum?
>The theory that our universe had a mindless physical cause perfectly predicts the universe we observe: a dispassionate, mechanical, mindless, physical cosmos.
How so? I don't understand how that predicts any of those things. You're just claiming that it does and not offering a single syllogism or peer-reviewed study to back you up.
>>314786
Answer my question, please, and stop dancing around it. Do you not accept that concept as correct? Why do you postulate the multiverse theory as an alternative to theism?
>>314830
>Why do you postulate the multiverse theory as an alternative to theism?
see >>314551
>>314819
>The multiverse is where you draw a line, and I don't understand why it shouldn't be explainable.
There must be some ultimate entity, which is the eternal first cause and ground of all being, the end point of all explanations.
> I don't understand how that predicts any of those things.
All the causes whose existence we have confirmed are unintelligent, immutable forces and objects. Never once have we confirmed the existence of any other kind of cause. And that is most strange if there is a god, but not strange at all if there isn’t.
>>314874
You keep linking me to posts that I take enormous amounts of issue with. Again, I don't understand why you think God wouldn't use the Big Bang to create the universe, or why you think a universe that takes time to develop isn't one God would create. I've told you this already. You ignored me.
>There must be some ultimate entity, which is the eternal first cause and ground of all being, the end point of all explanations.
Terms all borrowed from theistic vocabularies.
>All the causes whose existence we have confirmed are unintelligent, immutable forces and objects. Never once have we confirmed the existence of any other kind of cause. And that is most strange if there is a god, but not strange at all if there isn’t.
Again, you're simply wrong to expect theistic and scientific belief to operate the same way.
>>314907
>I don't understand why you think God wouldn't use the Big Bang to create the universe, or why you think a universe that takes time to develop isn't one God would create.
The nature of the world is manifestly dispassionate and blind, exhibiting no value-laden behavior or message of any kind. It is like an autistic idiot savant, a marvelous machine wholly uncomprehending of itself or others. This is exactly what we should expect if it was not created and governed by a benevolent deity, while it is hardly explicable on the theory that there is such a being. Since there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no divine hand.
One particular way to put this is that there is no high teleology anywhere in the organization of the universe. By that I mean the sort of intention or goal one can only expect from a conscious being like us, as opposed to the sort of goals exhibited by, say, a flat worm or a computer game or an ant colony. The most teleological force we observe in nature, apart from the goals and intentions of animals—whose cause we already understand to be evolution by natural selection—is that of natural selection itself, which shows no more intelligence than an ant hill or, more to the point, a desktop computer, which we know even today can model the entire process.
In contrast, even a cold-hearted superintelligence would not be so stupid as to take billions of years of meandering and disastrously catastrophic trial and error to figure out how to make a human. It would just make humans. But the evidence does not pan out that way—that is not what happened. Instead, a moronic teleological process did the work, sloppy and slow. That is incredible if God exists. But it makes perfect sense if he doesn’t.
>>314953
Look, if you don't think the universe is anthropomorphic, stop calling it 'blind' or 'passionless.' You aren't forwarding your argument at all by doing so. I get it, you're a materialist.
>Since there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no divine hand.
Again, you seem to misunderstand the nature of the difference between scientific and theistic belief.
>The most teleological force we observe in nature, apart from the goals and intentions of animals—whose cause we already understand to be evolution by natural selection—is that of natural selection itself,
Evolution isn't teleological at all.
>In contrast, even a cold-hearted superintelligence would not be so stupid as to take billions of years of meandering and disastrously catastrophic trial and error to figure out how to make a human. It would just make humans.
God did 'just' make humans, though. There was no process of trial and error. Genesis just says that God made man out of clay and woman out of his rib. Nothing about God using the universe as a prototype for humanity.
>>314996
>God did 'just' make humans, though. There was no process of trial and error. Genesis just says that God made man out of clay and woman out of his rib.
>>315011
What's your point? Even if the rest of Creation was leading up to the creation of Adam and Eve, they were the first humans and they weren't preceded by inferior humans.
>>315074
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo
>>315086
This is entirely beside the point. Humans came into existence at some point. Theists attribute this to divine action.
>>315186
>Humans came into existence at some point.
Re-watch the video.
>Theists attribute this to divine action.
I don't care if they attribute it to divine action, ancient aliens, or magic wizards. They should be able to justify their claims.
>>315197
Again, you misunderstand the nature of theistic belief. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. It's clear that you aren't even willing to consider the other side of this issue and that you don't understand theistic belief at all. Have a good night.
>>315218
Good night
>>313892
>Is this the best of all possibile worlds, /his/?
>possible worlds
>https://www.philpapers.org/archive/sinPG
Fuck off with your waifuism.
>>315229
>All Christians use the same arguments
>>315263
Yes, but this bumbling fuck I was talking do didn't offer any explanations or justifications for anything. He just kept repeating that I didn't understand his beliefs or the nature of theistic beliefs but never stated what that meant or why he didn't need justification.
God could have made the world like anime.
God could have given us a world with no war, pain, illness, sadness, or needless suffering.
God could have given us a world where superman averted every major catastrophe and invented genetically modified catgirls for domestic ownership.
But he chose not to.
>>315322
God not catering to your magical realm is probably the shittiest argument for atheism I've ever seen.
>>313931
Is there free will in heaven?
Is there sin in heaven?
>>315334
I'm not an atheist
>>313904
>We mucked it up.
Fuck you. You want to destroy society and bring us all back to savage animals
>>315292
At no point did you justify any of your claims about why God wouldn't allow the universe to exist for billions of years and contain quarks or galaxies. You called evolution a teleological process. You have no right to criticize anyone. You're the best example of a Redditor on this board.
>>315574
>At no point did you justify any of your claims about why God wouldn't allow the universe to exist for billions of years and contain quarks or galaxies.
I never said it was impossible, but I explained many time on why it is very unlikely.
>You called evolution a teleological process
I called it the closest thing to a teleological process in nature.
>>315592
>but I explained many time on why it is very unlikely.
Completely inadequately every time ost of those explanations were links back to the first post in which you made the claim.
>closest
You never explained why you think it's even close to teleological. Protip: it isn't even close so your explanation won't be adequate.
>>315600
>You never explained why you think it's even close to teleological.
“Teleology” is the study of goals, of designs with intended ends. A teleological process is something goal-oriented, aiming at a final purpose, ever-correcting itself toward it. So yes, evolution is NOT teleological (and I never claimed it to be). I just said it was the most similar thing to an actual teleological process in the universe. Obviously if there were actual teleological processes I wouldn't be an atheist.
>Completely inadequately
I'm sorry you feel that way.
>>315614
Why would you say it's close to teleological, though?
I'm sorry you find them adequate. Do you really think you're capable of psychoanalyzing an infinite mind?
>>315639
>Why would you say it's close to teleological, though?
Natural selection seems to be self-correcting and goal-orientated in the sense that things not fit for surviving and passing on their genes die off. I'm not going to discuss this anymore.
>>315639
>Do you really think you're capable of psychoanalyzing an infinite mind?
Yes, as stated here >>314295
