Is the argument from morality a strong enough basis for the existence of God?

Is the argument from morality a strong enough basis for the existence of God?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    at the bottom of the iceberg you learn anything that goes against physics is by definition immoral

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      We would need to precisely define what needs to be understood by God and morality, and why is there a logical relation between both of them. For example, the universe could have been created by an impersonal God that didn't also create morality and 'doesn't care' about your actions. If this was the case then everything is permitted. On the other hand, someone that acts purely out of self interest could be moral. A sufficient reason for acting morally that doesn't involve God could be the following: living in a just society is in your personal interest, and since a just society can only exist insofar everyone acts morally, it's in your self interest to act moral. Hence, in this context, our definition of morality would need to include good actions that aren't tied or conditioned by individual self interest. But with this definition, the basis of morality cannot be eternal reward from God, because in that case morality would be conditioned upon the self interested wish of an individual reward. If someone uses eternal reward as the basis of morality, they're presupposing individualism. And if individualism is true, then morality is conditioned by the individual i.e. morality isn't objective as such. Thus, it's contradictory to say that there is objective morality because there is eternal reward from God. If someone accepts that not everything is permitted, they must accept eternal reward doesn't have anything to do with the basis of morality.
      So, if God is the basis of objective morality and objective morality is more than individual self interest, then individualism can't be a sufficient reason for the existence of objective morality. If there is objective morality, then it can't be a means to an end, but rather the end in itself. But if the end entails the existence of God, then the end can't be means to God, the end must be God himself; or if the end isn't the same as God, then God wouldn't have to do anything with the content of the end itself, but rather he would be the only possible ground in which 'transcendentals' such as good can exist. If the first, then the experience of the divine must be explicit in morals, and if that was the case then there would be no question as to the connection between morals and God's existence; and if the latter, the proof for the existence of God wouldn't come from ethics, but from metaphysics.
      In conclusion, my answer is no. There is no possible way in which a moral argument proves the existence of God unless we already presuppose God's existence, but then a proof wouldn't be required.

      Can you name something that goes against physics? How do you distinguish between phenomena that goes against physics and counterevidence to a physical theory? Suppose a theory predicts X and X doesn't happen, does that mean the theory is false or that something went against physics? How do you tell?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Can you name something that goes against physics?
        Beliefs and mental constructs can go against physics. Delusions are the primordial root of immorality. E.g. you can believe you're a woman even if you're biologically and physically male.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      that explains so much.

      I only wish I had some sort of metric to gauge how I should be punished for such infractions, so i could make an informed choice..

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

    He was just projecting. "I am a terrible person but because I fear of going to hell I won't do anything bad. I would if I could though."

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      So what is your basis for morality? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just curious.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not him, but it's an issue that has extensively been dealt with by philosophers of ethics.
        The usual lines that people start off with are:
        >Humans are capable of feeling both pleasure and pain. Pleasure feels good and pain feels bad, which is why humans should do that which causes the least pain and the most pleasure for everyone
        or
        >Humans are capable of reason. Since they can judge that which is good from that which is bad, it is imperative for them to do what is good for all people to do.
        You can find some ethicists who've sought for some kind of middle ground, like John Stuart Mill, who believed that certain types of pleasure (mostly the ones of a more intellectual kind) were more virtuous than others, and others who claim that reason is what makes people decide what types of pleasure are more likely to lead to long-term well-being. You can even find people who think that virtue ethics is possible without believing in God because humans are naturally drawn towards balance, or moderation.

        I'm not saying you should give up your faith in God because other people claim that God doesn't exist. For some people it is necessary to believe that there is a God who imposes morals on them so that they have a strong reason to follow them, but I want you to be aware that in some people's case, "the force of nature" and "human reason" take the place of "God", and for them that is a good enough of a reason to follow what they believe to be good and just.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks for the effortpost anon.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >is incels' obvious need of pussy proof of its availability? In my mind not necessarily, but it does certainly suggest it.

          You are like babies
          >Human mind favors patterns
          >Maximizing order and patterns is the only moral endeavor

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          are capable of feeling both pleasure and pain. Pleasure feels good and pain feels bad, which is why humans should do that which causes the least pain and the most pleasure for everyone
          Doesn't this ignore the important problem in ethics? Everyone knows pain is bad and pleasure is good, but the problem is we don't know if there is something better or worse, or if pleasure or pain lead to something better or worse. In order to make the search of something such as pleasure a moral imperative, it must be presupposed there is nothing more desirable than pleasure. But we cannot know this by simply statinp pleasure is good and pain is bad.
          are capable of reason. Since they can judge that which is good from that which is bad, it is imperative for them to do what is good for all people to do.
          Isn't this an appeal to common sense? How do we know the judgement of some humans is correct? Even more so if we consider how it can change according to culture. And even if were correct, how does ''my judgement tells me I ought to do X'' entails ''I ought to do X for everyone''?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not the other guy, but it has been argued that Morality has roots in Evolutionary selection and therefore is older than humans. Assume we have two groups of cavemen, one eats their babies, one not. Which one do you think will be around 20y later ?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          That’s not ethics though that’s just natural selection.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            These are both the same
            Caveman group views eating its babies as bad. It survives. This is spread. Boom you have a universal value
            Food food
            Water good
            Family good
            and so on

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Suffering bad
        Simple as

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          I suffer greatly when I go for my morning runs. I am assured it is great for me.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Compulsive reactions to stimulus with cooked up justifications long after run time. The reactions are based. The cooked up justifications overreach.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >So what is your basis for morality?
        Given that our universe is infinite in time, reincarnation is not only real, but inevitable. You can behave in an immoral, destructive way, but in the long term, you'll live out the consequences of your own actions.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        As per usual, Pratchett had it right. Morality, ethics, justice, order, etc is all a lie that we must believe in. Our basis is as made up as the concept itself. To not do what is best for all is to have already been lost.

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    This argument works in reverse too

    Since everything is indeed permitted, therefore there is no god.

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    To rephrase the question, is our obvious need of God proof of his existence? In my mind not necessarily, but it does certainly suggest it.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >is incels' obvious need of pussy proof of its availability? In my mind not necessarily, but it does certainly suggest it.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is no obvious need of God

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    See Euthyphro and Hume's is/ought problem. God is just as incapable of giving us objective morality as anyone else.

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    His point is the impotence and insufficiency of morality.

  7. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't follow that since people can call something good or bad that there is some sort of ghostly entity with such and such powers such and such personality and that the nature of time and space is based on this entity poofing things into existence.

    It's like saying that because we can think about the past reincarnation must be real.

  8. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    How does this prove the existence of God? You're pretty much saying
    >LIFE WITHOUT GOD IS SCARY SO GOD HAS TO EXIST BECAUSE THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS ARE SO SCARY

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dosto's point is not a proof.
      it's a consequence of the contrary thought.
      there is necessarily nothing you could not do, if life truly was just a fickle few years here and nothingness.
      you see it in his characters, like how Kirillov shoots himself and how Ivan commits murder to prove that exact point

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ivan loses his mind when he realizes the ultimate consequence of his belief

  9. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Morality from God

  10. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reddit quote

  11. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I really like the moment Zossima and Ivan have at the beginning of the book when Zossima questions whether or not Ivan really believes that.

  12. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    You don't need God for morality. Read picrel.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous
  13. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    That’s not even an argument for gods existence so no. That is like Plato’s noble lie but condensed into a Reddit quote.

  14. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    why do atheists seem to universally fail to understand the premise here and always go for the irrelevant "heh you need god to tell you not to be bad, that means youre bad" cope even though its completely out of left field and doesnt even attempt to explore the philosophical premise?

    its like theyre literally too stupid to have this conversation, but they saw a smug comment on reddit once and thought it was an epic burn, so they copy and paste it

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because either Good and Evil map on to material causes and effects, meaning they are discoverable, or God mandates what is Good and Evil meaning there is no other basis than the caprice of a deity. The very concept of morality breaks down when you introduce an ultimate authority who has already mandated an absolute totalitarian mandate unless it maps on to a standard that exists in the material world which would render God superfluous. The desire for a God is the cry of a small child needing a parental figure to sort things out for them. Also, to be clear, it's not my that Christians are the most overt about this aspect of religion when they literally call God their "Heavenly Father". Infantilization is the goal.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        literally just became atheist
        holy shit..... frick. this was it. this was the moment. this was the post. took a lot to get me here, but that's it. atheist. I'm done.

        I don't even know what to say. just take responsibility. what do I do? like, what do you do when you just starkly realize everything your post just said? I think it was your post combined with

        It took me a second to understand the image, but when I did, it felt like the tick of the minute hand in my brain. And when I read your post, the hand ticked again with perfect synchronization of the hour hand. well what do I do???

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          live your life homosexual, being an athiest is based because you don't have to go to church anymore and just work for yourself and frick b***hes

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Unironically start with the Greeks

  15. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I believe in God because it's cool, it looks cool, and it feels good. Simple as.

  16. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    problem of evil is the most obvious counter against christian god, if we're talking ethics

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Problem of evil is the most obvious redditor filter.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah how hard is to just reply, choices.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Good morning sir.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you choose to believe I was an ai

            This is what ChatGPT told ya?

            The problem of evil is that people choose evil?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are a fifteen year old atheist redditor. Come back and shitpost when your balls drop.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The problem of evil is that people choose evil?
            Incorrect. The problem of evil is that we are able to choose evil at all.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            It should not be an option, and a just god would not will it to be so.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            So we must accept, god is not omniscient, god is not omnipotent, but he is still very powerful none the less.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            so what does this god want? why does he disguise himself in the cloth of all other gods? Why does he lie about his powers, what are the nature of his flaws, who is he as a personification of man, what is he like as an individual?

            If not this, then god should be described as a force, which he may also very well be, the force and the personification at odds at times and cooperating during others.

            Why is it this god, from his rhetoric, has no face?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            so what then, is this third, angry and wrathful god? What is HIS nature, what does HE personify. Why is he at times at ease and at peace and others angry and stormy like the winds? Why is there no consistency in how he behaves?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            So then what IS god?
            A benevolent personification of a loving diety, an unstoppable force older than time, or a wrathful and irrational destroyer who meets out justice on terrible sinners?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            If there is a 'one-god' then I can't help but think he is terribly fragmented, even in our perceptions of him. These different narratives are incompatible with one another yet we are told they are all the same thing.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            is it no wonder then, that the bible is so confusing? We have our scripture but we have no idea where it originates, though there are answers to these questions if you look hard enough, they are not obvious and one might never find them having been taught in the way of their parish.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            One might never think to ask a israelite anything, if one were so inclined.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            a dedicated atheist would pursue theology, to build the strongest case against himself, to tear it down piece by piece, to reduce god to rubble.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are so israelite brained its unreal.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Seethe for me baby

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            A just god gave you all the tools and every language on earth with a word for it, morality is universal in the sense tha it's born of self and others preservation, one of the most fundamental principles of life, defeat loneliness

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >"Why do small children die agonizing deaths of a natural disease like bone cancer?"
          >"UHH, WELL, DUH, BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED THE FREEDOM TO MAKE CHOICES!"
          The average IQ on this board has to be in double digits with the number of people dragging it down.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Epicurus can’t even move the first atom and you give a shit about his arguments?

      Reddit

  17. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    No. But the point of brothers K is that people who don’t believe in God dont actually believe in the necessary consequences that come without God. This is also what N writes about when the old Saint comes down from the mountain and everyone laughs at him.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don’t think he was arguing for the existence of God on the basis of morality. He was merely stating the moral implications for the presupposition that God doesn’t exist.

      They get it.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dosto seems to believe that no one actually "doesn't believe in god", since his main atheist, Ivan, is set up to basically secretly believe in God (a theist's wet dream strawman).

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        In fairness, I think that has to do with solipsism. If you believe in God, it's hard to imagine not believing in God. Van Til understood this at an academic level.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          This is my conclusion as well but as a person who actually doesn't believe in God, it's an extremely glaring flaw and limiting factor to Dosto's writing. If his main recommending attribute is his excellent grasp of human psychology, the inability to comprehend people outside of his mode of thinking is a pretty significant blind spot. Also, I don't level this criticism at Dosto alone, it seems likely that Freud operated in the opposite direction, being unable to comprehend what is it actually like to be a true believer. But he excelled at outlandish theories woven together to provide valuable insights, so his blind spot was not as damaging to his work as Dosto's was to his fiction.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think he’s overly accusing most atheists of not sincerely not believing in god as he doesn’t actually criticize the view as much as point out the consequence of it.

        Everyone reads the book agrees that murder is bad which is not an atheist position

  18. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dosto was an atheist

  19. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think you can argue for the existence of God from the existence of evil, but only if you have the intuition that something is behind the evil you see in the world, a force for evil, implying that a counterforce for good exists.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      See this makes sense

      At the same time good for everyone is a more complicated question

  20. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is objectively true; I don't understand how seething libtards can comprehend this. If there is no God, then life is meaningless. If life is meaningless, there can not be objective good and evil.
    >inb4 muh I can le choose the meaning of my own life
    If meaning is subjective then anyone can deem their own actions good, so everything is permitted hence.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      You realize God choosing what has meaning is just as subjective as any random person choosing what has meaning. I suggest you look up what subjective means.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I-it's just God's opinion anyway!
        Gaytheists are embarrassing.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          you will never be a real christian

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Even if there's no objective meaning, there are objective differences between things. If God exists, and imposes values on those differences to make some of them meaningful and others not, the differences are no less real. Besides that, there's nowhere in the Bible that argues that people should believe in God to find meaning.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >>I-it's just God's opinion anyway!
          >Gaytheists are embarrassing.
          Christian: Atheists can't have morality
          Atheist: Murdering people is wrong
          Christian: That's just your opinion!
          Give me a break man.
          >If God exists, and imposes values on those differences to make some of them meaningful and others not
          Again how is that different than any random person imposing values on things? If God's opinions can make things meaningful why can't mine?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Again how is that different than any random person imposing values on things? If God's opinions can make things meaningful why can't mine?

            Authority. If God exists, he has the authority to tell you what matters and what doesn't. My point, however, is that the Bible doesn't really do this. People obsess over meaning, value, and purpose, but the God of the Christian Bible doesn't seem interested.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If God exists, he has the authority to tell you what matters and what doesn't.
            Why does he have the authority to say what matters and no one else does? Don't you see how silly this is? By definition God's opinions are as subjective as anyone else. God can not give objective morality.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, it's not silly. That's a step too far. Also, I never said God's opinions weren't subjective but that they'd be authoritative if, indeed, there was a God telling people what to do.

            I realize other anons will say that, but I never did.

            This matters because the Bible never appeals to anything besides God's authority. The Bible doesn't say, "If God says murder is wrong, murder is objectively wrong." It distinguishes between types of killing God does and does not permit. It appeals only to objective differences.

            Now, suppose I don't believe there should be speed limits and drive at 90 in a 50 zone. The State has the authority to fine me. That doesn't mean the State is producing objective values, only that I must submit to its power or face the consequences.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This matters because the Bible never appeals to anything besides God's authority.
            Again why does God have authority and I don't?
            You even give up on this and devolve to might makes right.
            >That doesn't mean the State is producing objective values, only that I must submit to its power or face the consequences.
            And this is you giving up on claiming that God gives us morality and shifting instead to him enforcing his laws. But the whole point of this was to use an argument from morality to try and prop up God's existence. There is zero evidence of God existing or enforcing any type of law.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, I answered a question:

            You realize God choosing what has meaning is just as subjective as any random person choosing what has meaning. I suggest you look up what subjective means.

            >You realize God choosing what has meaning is just as subjective as any random person choosing what has meaning. I suggest you look up what subjective means.

            I said that's inconsequential, not that it isn't true.

            As for why God has authority, if he exists, because he can throw you into hell. If other anons want to argue that might makes right is an unacceptable way to view it, they can. But at that point, my claim stands.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >As for why God has authority, if he exists, because he can throw you into hell. If other anons want to argue that might makes right is an unacceptable way to view it, they can. But at that point, my claim stands.
            I already addressed this in the post your responding. Please read the whole post before responding
            >You even give up on this and devolve to might makes right.
            >And this is you giving up on claiming that God gives us morality and shifting instead to him enforcing his laws. But the whole point of this was to use an argument from morality to try and prop up God's existence. There is zero evidence of God existing or enforcing any type of law.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I did, anon. Let me know if you want to come back to this later because right now, I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I understand and even anticipated you claiming might makes right before you said it. God can't give objective morality and argument for his existence that depends on him giving us objective morality doesn't work. To address a different claim might makes right relies on some of evidence of might and there is zero evidence that God exists.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why is murdering people wrong?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why does God saying murdering people is wrong make it wrong?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            if God exists, then He decides what is good or evil.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why? What difference is there between God any random person when it comes to deciding good and evil? Ask the exact same question you asked me to God when he says killing people is wrong. Why is murder wrong God?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            "Decides" based on what criteria? Caprice? In this case, you are Nietzsche's perfect example of a person with slave morality. You are uninterested in actual moral right and wrong, only in obeying some authority.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            Moral truths are not possible, whether God is real or not. But this is irrelevant to the situation. If God, who was all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere, thought something was not how he wanted it, then most people would factor His supernatural opinion into their own decision making.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You've got it.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >there's nowhere in the Bible that argues X
          when has that ever stopped a christian

  21. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t think he was arguing for the existence of God on the basis of morality. He was merely stating the moral implications for the presupposition that God doesn’t exist.

  22. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    If free will exists you can simply choose not to do bad things
    And if it doesn't well of course you have no choice what you do
    Either way the existence of god doesn't matter

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      In relation to your second point, would you agree with this quote from Robert Sapolsky's new book on Determinsm?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        Firs off, this is literally moronic because even in a deterministic, mechanistic world, incentives and threatened punishments would be inputs that shape the output, so there would still be a purpose to punish and scold. What ceases to make sense is revenge, and this is actually what I believe is true. Causing someone pain because they caused you pain has no moral justification unless it can serve as a deterrent to future unjust behavior. Again, the goal of morality is to produce future circumstances that are better than they were previously. Praise is the same, if praise is desirable, and it occurs when contributing something good, people will gravitate towards doing things that get praise, and we all benefit as people produce better circumstances than they otherwise would have. Why do people seem to lose all basic reasoning like try to discredit determinism?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous
  23. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Could someone summarise the main arguments people are making when they say 'the argument from morality'?
    For example, one argument seems to be that we need to argue about the feasibility of objective morality without God
    Since we cannot find a basis for objective morality without God, God exists since we assume that objective morality exists

  24. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    How can anyone seriously believe this?
    History is a tale of religious people using their belief system to justify all sorts of horrible atrocities.

    If anything, if there is God, everything is permitted.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >assume there is god
      >therefore, everything is permitted
      >oh, except for murder that's wrong
      >ALSO stealing, that's bad
      >furthermore, not washing your hands properly, and having certain kinds of livestock generally associated with a decrease in health or our ability to produce enough grain is also banned
      >oh and no inbreeding
      >and a trillion other rules that literally hold our society together and are the sole reason why we have medicine or engineering at all
      yeah other than those things EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED wowweeee moron

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        The fact that murder and theft exist goes to show that, if a God exists, he permits it.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, are you?
        I will repeat. Religous people use God to justify murder. It was more frequent in the past but it still happens now. At least with atheist types you can potentially convince them out of commiting a certain act by constructing an argument. Whereas with religious people, if they think they are acting in accordance with God's will, there is nothing you can do about it.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          this is true of any moral doctrine, secular or religious
          the largest mass killings in history were primarily justified under secular ideology
          religion does not make people irrational but rather reflects the inherit irrationality of humans

  25. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's more of an argument about how fricked the human condition is, that we need fantasies to keep us from killing ourselves. I don't mean this as disrespect to his view. Rather, it is clear that without God we either concoct a dumber replacement (human rights, natural rights, categorical imperative, the greater good, etc.) or go full nihilist. Mackie and error theory has answered all of this. So you really have three options: (1) God, who may or may not be real, (2) morals values that were clearly invented at well documented points in history, or (3) nihilism, which some evidence suggests is true. It's just that option (2) is so clearly stupid, so you're really left with either God or nihilism.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      do you really believe your grandfather was a monkey?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        I am not African

  26. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like because we have morality there definitely is something good in this world... but morality is not that strong... not a dominating force... so god is pretty weak in my eyes...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *