COMPARING THE PROOFS OF RELIGIOUS GOD, JESUS, MOHAMMED AND GREAT MORTAL MEN.

When it comes to religious debates between atheists and theists, one bone of contention is the question of evidence. Before I go into the comparison of the proofs of god, Jesus, Muhammed and great mortal men, I would like to make something clear about the definition of atheism and the burden of proof. Atheism is a DISBELIEF (NOT A BELIEF) , in the existence of god(s)/supreme deitie(s). Believing in something is different from disbelieving in something even though both must happen for a reason - good or stvpid. Why don't atheists believe in Jesus and Yahweh? Atheists don't believe (ie. disbelieve) the christian god(called Yahweh), Jesus and the claims of the bible because there are no sound evidences to support such claims and ideas. In foolishness, I hope it is clear to christians that atheism is not a belief system because I know many will feign ignorance because boxing atheism together with religion is a precious leverage they have in religious arguments and they don't want to let go of that leverage because once it is shattered they have very little to say as defence. Also, to them, it's not about reasoning but saying something.

Another thing I would like to correct is where the burden of proof lies ie. who has the responsibility of proving religious claims? in fact, who has something to prove? Is it the atheist or the christian? It is the christian. Why is that so? because the christian is the one with the claim and if you make a claim, it's your duty to prove and defend it. Imagine I came to you and said "hey, purple unicorns exist. I know they exist," you would, if you are not retarded, ask why(my proof or evidence) I said so because, already, you don't believe in pink unicorns because you have no reasons to. It would be a dishonesty bordering on lunacy for me to reply "they exist because you can't disprove the existence of unicorns ie. you can't prove unicorns don't exist" rather than give my proof. It's the duty of those who make the claim to prove their claim. If can't give my proof, I shouldn't look at people who doubt the existence of pink unicorns as foolish, unreasonable or mentally deficient. In fact, if you can't prove your claims, don't expect anyone to believe your claims. A lot of christian do that a lot when it comes to atheism, they ask us to prove that their god doesn't exist.

If someone says "I don't believe in god because there are no evidences to support the existence of god," there is no problem and such a person has nothing to prove but if you say "I believe in the existence of Yahweh, Jesus and the bible," you just made a claim and it's your responsibility to prove it. If you can't prove your claim, do not expect anyone to believe it. Christians who have read what I wrote would still feign ignorance and classify atheism as a religion so that they and atheists can be on the same page and they can accuse atheists of logical fallacies they are guilty of as if it proves their sacred beliefs. This shows that they are not after reasoning but feel safe in numbers. If not, why try to dishonestly make out atheism to be a belief system. Even if atheism is a belief system, it still won't make christianity true.

In summary, atheism is not a belief that there is no god and we have nothing to prove. The duty of proving the existence of god lies on the christian. Asking atheist to prove that god doesn't exist is an irrational thing to say.

Now, let's go into the proof for god, Jesus, Muhammad and great mortal men...

I agree with you but where I strongly disagree with atheists is when they proclaim anyone who isn't an atheist as delusional.

There are other rational worldviews that are not atheistic.

why bothering yourself on God that doesn't exist



you strain yourself to type long post about God, you claim doesn't exist, Bro , find something reasonable to do

you are getting older

Saying you disbelieve in God is the same as saying you believe God doesn't exist. One just needs a definition of "belief" to see this.

GeneralShepherd:
I agree with you but where I strongly disagree with atheists is when they proclaim anyone who isn't an atheist as delusional.

There are other rational worldviews that are not atheistic.

Delusion isn't really an insult.

See, there are several beliefs we can possess. Belief can be factually wrong or factually correct.

Factually wrong beliefs are delusions.

No big deal

continued.

Carl Sagan, a dead American astronomer, said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences." That is a simple truth. The proof I would expect for the existence of great mortal men like Sir Isaac Newton, Socrates, Einstein, Aristotle etc. is not as extraordinary as the proof I would like expect for an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient immortal god. The great mortal men made no claim to be gods and they are dead so they cannot answer for themselves hence the most reasonable way of verifying their existence is to go through historical records. Mind you their existence and identities are not as important as their ideas and works unlike the case for Yahweh and Jesus. If it turned out that Sir Isaac Newton never existed, it wouldn't affect the legitimacy of calculus, gravity and the Philosophiae Naturalis Principa Mathematica (a book written by Newton). If it turns out that Einstein never existed, it doesn't make general relativity untrue but if Jesus and Yahweh never existed then christianity cannot be true. This points to the great importance on evidence when it comes to existence of Yahweh and Jesus and the analysis and acceptance of biblical claims.

Did Sir Isaac Newton, Socrates, Albert Einstein and Aristotle exist? Yes they did because their written academic works, their letters, portraits and pictures (in some cases) and citations by other contemporaries are available and a critical analysis of these materials make their existence very plausible. Though we cannot see them because they are dead but we know they existed because of historical evidences. How do I know I had a great grandfather? Well, I don't expect to see my great grandfather to know I had one (besides, he is dead) instead my existence is enough proof that I had a great grandfather because the spermatozoa that gave rise to me came from someone and that someone came from a spermatozoa. You can take it like this to get back in time to any generation you want. As to his identity, it's not important to me so I don't know who he was or what he did for a living.

When asked for evidences that the Jesus of the bible existed, christians start saying "well, there are tons of historical evidences and reputable scholars agree that Jesus Christ existed ." Seriously? Is that all you've got to offer? A being that's immortal is still alive, let him speak for himself. A being that's omnipotent can do all things, let him reveal himself to me. A being that's omniscient knows it all, he knows what he will do to convince me of his existence. He is omnipresent, he is everywhere I go so he can always locate me. Despite all this, all you've got is "tons of historical evidences and all scholars agree," isn't it? No extraordinary evidence for such extraordinary claim. Given the attributes of Yahweh and Jesus, asking for a clear cut miracle or signs and wonders in order to believe is not so much to ask at all and it wouldn't stop him from being god if he did that. So if you or your god isn't doing something spectacular to prove his existence then hush and don't waste my time with your "tons of historical evidences and reputable scholars agree" nonsense . Despite all what I wrote in blue, why am I still an atheist?

Before I address the so called "tons of historical evidences and most reputable scholars agree," here are threads and videos to help you concerning the issue of Jesus Christ's existence.

1) A fantastic thread by HopefulLandlord
https://www.nairaland.com/3206708/reasons-scholars-know-jesus-christ

2) A fantastic video by Dr. Richard Carrier. If you have data and time for a good laugh, be sure to go through the comments on this video because christians weren't having any of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

3) A fantastic video by Dr. Ray Hagins (though I don't agree with many of his views). Here he goes deep on the origin and invention of Jesus Christ. If you have data and time for a good laugh, be sure to go through the comments on this video because christians weren't having any of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqFtpV4i4zs

4) Christopher Hitchens on the Jesus Myth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBE

Hahn, CAPSLOCKED, HopefulLandlord, HardMirror, Tozara aka Tollzara, Anas09, Paxonel, Originalkalokalo, 1Sharon aka Sharon6, budaatum, vaxx, johnydon22, dalaman, ranchhoddas, HellVictorinho, MrPRevailer, XxSabrinaxX, MhizAngel99, bloodofthelamb, MrPresident1, 0temSapien, MrBrownJay1, OpenYourEyes1, alfaman3, jesusjnr, lightblazingnow, Seun, Niflheim etc.

Martinez19:
Hahn, CAPSLOCKED, HopefulLandlord, HardMirror, Tozara aka Tollzara, Anas09, Paxonel, Originalkalokalo, 1Sharon aka Sharon6, budaatum, vaxx, johnydon22, dalaman, ranchhoddas, HellVictorinho, MrPRevailer, XxSabrinaxX, MhizAngel99, bloodofthelamb, MrPresident1, 0temSapien, MrBrownJay1, OpenYourEyes1, alfaman3, jesusjnr, lightblazingnow, Seun, Niflheim etc.

your existence is a proof God exist. If you don't believe then answer this

How did the first human cell, come about or let me say, who create it

Before I continue on my topic, let's distract ourselves with some entertainment. In the comment section of Dr. Ray Hagins' and Dr. Richard Carrier's videos, christians couldn't handle the fact that Jesus in the bible never existed and they went bananas . Here are few of them for the sake of those with little data.

lwkmd

Martinez19:
Before I continue on my topic, let's distract ourselves with some entertainment. In the comment section of Dr. Ray Hagins' and Dr. Richard Carrier's videos, christians couldn't handle the fact that Jesus in the bible never existed and they went bananas . Here are few of them for the sake of those with little data.

Answer the questions

ElidaxZiel:
your existence is a proof God exist. If you don't believe then answer this

How did the first human cell, come about or let me say, who create it

No time for nonsense questions, state your belief and provide evidence sharp sharp or gerraut.

ElidaxZiel:
your existence is a proof God exist. If you don't believe then answer this

How did the first human cell, come about or let me say, who create it

This is a nonsensical statement weaved into a nonsensical question.

You do not replace evidence with ignorance and think you have an argument, that's nothing short of idiocy.

Let me demonstrate; Obama is my father, if you don't believe this, tell me the name of my first great great grand father?

Our ignorance is not evidence for God unless you only wish to make God a temporarily and ever receding placeholder for our ignorance.

We may then stop using the word "ignorance" and replace it with the word "God"

Instead of saying "You are so ignorant" I'd rather say

"You are so God" cus really, you are.

Martinez19:
No time for nonsense questions, state your belief and provide evidence sharp sharp or gerraut.

As expected ! Delusional
Even your so called great scholar scientist can never provide answer

It is obvious you have no clue

Then

i advise you cut off your fingers, for you are not even worthy to say God doesn't exist / disbelief God

johnydon22:


This is a nonsensical statement weaved into a nonsensical question.

You do not replace evidence with ignorance and think you have an argument, that's nothing short of idiocy.

Let me demonstrate; Obama is my father, if you don't believe this, tell me the name of my first great great grand father?

Our ignorance is not evidence for God unless you only wish to make God a temporarily and ever receding placeholder for our ignorance.

We may then stop using the word "ignorance" and replace it with the word "God"

Instead of saying "You are so ignorant" I'd rather say

"You are so God" cus really, you are.

I expect you to say to its nonsense, because you don't have answer , Mind you , its not ignorance , you fucking mofos and your scientists just don't have answer,, What about the other animals ??

you are only just deceiving yourself !

ElidaxZiel:
As expected ! Delusional
Even your so called great scholar scientist can never provide answer

It is obvious you have no clue

Then

i advise you cut off your fingers, for you are not even worthy to say God doesn't exist / disbelief God

how christ-like of you. Good day.

I am not surprised that stvpidity is roaming about in this thread.

CHRISTIAN LOGIC 101:
1) you have no answer, therefore it's Yahweh.
2) I have no answer, therefore it's Yahweh.

Martinez19:
If am not surprised that stvpidity is roaming about in this thread.

CHRISTIAN LOGIC 101:
1) you have no answer, therefore it's Yahweh.
2) I have no answer, therefore it's Yahweh.

why not provide the answer then

Martinez19:
how christ-like of you. Good day.

running away

ElidaxZiel:
I expect you to say to its nonsense, because you don't have answer , Mind you , its not ignorance , you fucking mofos and your scientists just don't have answer,, What about the other animals ??

you are only just deceiving yourself !

Read my reply again brother. You will be fine las las shaa

johnydon22:


Read my reply again brother. You will be fine las las shaa

. am expecting the answer too

ElidaxZiel:
. am expecting the answer too

ok

continued.

As I said, rather than letting god prove himself or back their claims with extraordinary evidences, they dish out the "there are tons of historical evidences and a lot of reputable scholars agree that Jesus existed" nonsense. Truth is that outside the bible, there are no sound evidences, logical or material, for the existence of Yahweh and Jesus. There are no evidences that Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah's ark, David and Abraham existed. If Jesus existed and did the miracles he did, how come contemporaries did not put it down into writing? I dare anyone to come up with a sound history evidence of Jesus' time on earth.

If we assume that a man called Jesus existed, how can we prove that he was divine and did the things he did? Remember that the mere existence of a mortal does not indicate that he/she is divine or performed miracles so if your so called "tons of historical evidences" said Jesus exist and that's enough for you to then believe that he is divine and performed miracles then you must also believe that Muhammad is a divine prophet and he split the moon in two. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad existed. Historical evidences show that Muhammad existed but historical evidences cannot prove that a man performed miracles or was divine. So if mere "tons of historical evidences" convince you that Jesus is divine and performed miracles, why don't you also believe that Muhammad is a divine prophet and he split the moon in two? After all, there are actual historical evidences that Muhammad existed.

What are these tons of historical evidences christians keep talking about? Who are these reputable scholars? Turns out that when you press them for answers they have nothing more than the so called writtings of Eusebius and Josephus. It also turns out that they can't even mention the names of these reputable scholars and historians and the "reputable scholars" are vague and made up. Fact is most scholars believe that Jesus did not exist and the writings of Eusebius have been shown to be complete forgery. The Testimonium Flavianum by Josephus which many christians refer to as historical proof were shown to be bastardised works of Josephus. A christian scholar bastardised Josephus' work to promote and validate christianity. Outside Eusebius and Josephus, what other historical evidences do christians have? Who are these "reputable scholars" that agree on Jesus' existence?

Christianity was, and still is, a lucrative hot cake when it comes to fooling and exploiting people so one shouldn't be surprised when they forge their "historical evidence." In the past, the Roman Catholic Church had the so called wooden cross, robe and nails used for Jesus but they soon abandoned that.

1) Eusebius forgery
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/fathereusebiustheforger.html

2) Josephus
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

There are other sources but I can't post them, I guess it's best you do your research.

Martinez19:
I am not surprised that stvpidity is roaming about in this thread.

CHRISTIAN LOGIC 101:
1) you have no answer, therefore it's Yahweh.
2) I have no answer, therefore it's Yahweh.

Dude is a troll. Forget him. Continue your thread, i will read later tonight.

continued.

I hope this time around, christians who have read this thread would be informed and up their game. We atheists don't have time for the nonsense of "tons of historical evidences and a lot of reputable scholars agree that Jesus existed." If you can't bring something extraordinary, forget it. I also hope that it's now clear that the burden of proof lies on you christians and if you can't prove your claim, don't expect anyone to believe you. To read more on the burden of proof, check out a thread, created days ago, by XxSabrinaxX

https://www.nairaland.com/4952457/christianity-burden-proof

If you still don't understand where the burden of proof lies, either you are an id1ot or you are willfully dishonest . I also hope that no one would say atheism is a belief system.

Finally, for those christians that would dishonestly say that there is no way I can be sure my sources and historical evidences of dead scientists are correct, I would say that, in the same way, you can also not be sure that your bible and "tons of historical evidences" are correct . Even if I blindly believe in the existence of Sir Isaac Newton just as you blindly believe in your god, it does not make you god exist; it doesn't make the bible legitimate and it does not change the fact you still have something to prove. I understand the need for safety in numbers. Question is where is your sound evidence?

******* THE END ********

OP, I have seen Amadioha with my very own eyes. So you cannot tell me that God doesn't exist.

Maybe Yahweh doesn't exist, but Amadioha does.

alfaman3:
OP, I have seen Amadioha with my very own eyes. So you cannot tell me that God doesn't exist.

Maybe Yahweh doesn't exist, but Amadioha does.

Until I see evidence for the existence of amadioha, I will have no reason to acknowledge his existence. Your experience is your own evidence not mine.

Martinez19:
Until I see evidence for the existence of amadioha, I will have no reason to acknowledge his existence. Your experience is your own evidence not mine.

Here is His picture. You can no longer deny Him.
You can see he is packing a big one.

alfaman3:


Here is His picture. You can no longer deny Him.
You can see he is packing a big one.

Lol. Wait let me carve the statue of batman, I am coming.

ElidaxZiel:
your existence is a proof God exist. If you don't believe then answer this

How did the first human cell, come about or let me say, who create it

There have been many experiments to know the cause of coming of life on earth, which had been created about 4.5 billion years ago. There are many theories as well regarding arrival of life in earth, and most theories were discarded, except one, which is ‘The Chemical Evolution of Life/Chemogeny/Abiogenesis’. It tells that first acellular life came about 3 billion years ago and first cellular life came about 2 billion years ago.

This theory was given by ‘Oparin’, a Russian scientist, & ‘Haldane’, a British scientist who came to INDIA and became a citizen of INDIA. This concept was first proposed in 1936 in a book entitled, "The Origin of Life on Earth," written by ‘Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin’.

The details of this theory are summed up as follows:-
*The temperature of earth at that time was about 60 degree Celsius and the atmosphere was reducing at that time, not oxidising as it is now.
*The chemicals in earth were NH3(ammonia), H2(hydrogen), CH4(methane), H2O vapours(Water vapours).
*He stated that ultraviolet radiation from the Sun provided the energy for the transformation of these substances into organic molecules.
*Scientists today state that such spontaneous synthesis occurred only in the primitive environment. Abiogenesis became impossible when photosynthetic cells added oxygen to the atmosphere. The oxygen in the atmosphere gave rise to the ozone layer which then shielded Earth from ultraviolet radiation. Newer versions of this hypothesis contend that the primitive atmosphere also contained carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen. Present-day volcanoes emit these substances.

In 1957, ‘Stanley Miller’ and ‘Harold Urey’ provided laboratory evidence that chemical evolution as described by Oparin could have occurred. The details of the Miller-Urey Expt. are given below:
Miller and Urey created an apparatus that simulated the primitive environment.
*They used a warmed flask of water for the ocean, and an atmosphere of water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane. Sparks discharged into the artificial atmosphere represented lightning.
*A condenser cooled the atmosphere, causing rain that returned water and dissolved compounds back to the simulated sea.
*When Miller and Urey analyzed the components of the solution after a week, they found various organic compounds had formed. These included some of the amino acids that compose the proteins of living things.
*The amino acids were Glycine, Alanine and Aspartic acid.
*Their results gave credence to the idea that simple substances in the warm primordial seas gave rise to the chemical building blocks of organisms.
*Scientists have successfully produced protobionts from organic molecules in the laboratory. Protobionts were not able to reproduce and pass genetic information.
*In one study, proteinoids mixed with cool water assembled into droplets or microspheres that developed membranes on their surfaces. These are protobionts, with semipermeable and excitable membranes, similar to those found in cells.
*In the final step of chemical evolution, protobionts developed the ability to reproduce and pass genetic information from one generation to the next.
*Some scientists theorize RNA to be the original hereditary molecule. Short polymers of RNA have been synthesized abiotically in the laboratory. In the 1980s, ‘Thomas Cech’ and his associates at the University of Colorado at Boulder discovered that RNA molecules can function as enzymes in cells. This implies that RNA molecules could have replicated in prebiotic cells without the use of protein enzymes.
*Variations of RNA molecules could have been produced by mutations and by errors during replication. Natural selection, operating on the different RNAs would have brought about subsequent evolutionary development. This would have fostered the survival of RNA sequences best suited to environmental parameters, such as temperature and salt concentration.
*As the protobionts grew and split, their RNA was passed on to offspring. In time, a diversity of prokaryote cells came into existence. Under the influence of natural selection, the prokaryotes could have given rise to the vast variety of life on Earth.

Thus, a single and simple cell developed from such a complex mechanism, and from that single cell only, we have been evolved.

Seriously, get your ass up. Don't just sit down and say "Yahweh did it" when you don't understand something. Even if you don't know, you have no objective proof that Yahweh did it. Read books, study these things and do your research. Don't you use libraries? Don't you use the internet? Come on now.

ElidaxZiel:
As expected ! Delusional
Even your so called great scholar scientist can never provide answer

It is obvious you have no clue

Then

i advise you cut off your fingers, for you are not even worthy to say God doesn't exist / disbelief God

You can wipe that smirk off your face now

XxSabrinaxX:

There have been many experiments to know the cause of coming of life on earth, which had been created about 4.5 billion years ago. There are many theories as well regarding arrival of life in earth, and most theories were discarded, except one, which is ‘The Chemical Evolution of Life/Chemogeny/Abiogenesis’


.

It tells that first acellular life came about 3 billion years ago and first cellular life came about 2 billion years ago.

what test was carried out to know it was 2 billion years




This theory was given by ‘Oparin’, a Russian scientist, & ‘Haldane’, a British scientist who came to INDIA and became a citizen of INDIA. This concept was first proposed in 1936 in a book entitled, "The Origin of Life on Earth," written by ‘Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin’.

The details of this theory are summed up as follows:-
*The temperature of earth at that time was about 60 degree Celsius and the atmosphere was reducing at that time, not oxidising as it is now.

This is not only possible but doesn't make sense, how can you know the temperature of atmosphere that exist 2 billion years ago, and how is it determined

*The chemicals in earth were NH3(ammonia), H2(hydrogen), CH4(methane), H2O vapours(Water vapours).
*He stated that ultraviolet radiation from the Sun provided the energy for the transformation of these substances into organic molecules.

do you think, you are talking to an art student, are you telling me, NH3, H2, H20 .. become organic molecules ! it does not make any sense. This is jargons and how did they know ultraviolet radiation act on them, what test was conducted ??






*Scientists today state that such spontaneous synthesis occurred only in the primitive environment. Abiogenesis became impossible when photosynthetic cells added oxygen to the atmosphere.

The oxygen in the atmosphere gave rise to the ozone layer which then shielded Earth from ultraviolet radiation.

where did the oxygen come from



Newer versions of this hypothesis contend that the primitive atmosphere also contained carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen. Present-day volcanoes emit these substances.

In 1957, ‘Stanley Miller’ and ‘Harold Urey’ provided laboratory evidence that chemical evolution as described by Oparin could have occurred. The details of the Miller-Urey Expt. are given below:
Miller and Urey created an apparatus that simulated the primitive environment.
*They used a warmed flask of water for the ocean, and an atmosphere of water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane. Sparks discharged into the artificial atmosphere represented lightning.
*A condenser cooled the atmosphere, causing rain that returned water and dissolved compounds back to the simulated sea.
*When Miller and Urey analyzed the components of the solution after a week, they found various organic compounds had formed. These included some of the amino acids that compose the proteins of living things.




*

The amino acids were Glycine, Alanine and Aspartic acid.
*Their results gave credence to the idea that simple substances in the warm primordial seas gave rise to the chemical building blocks of organisms.

Amino acid can never become a cell, that has genetic information




*Scientists have successfully produced protobionts from organic molecules in the laboratory. Protobionts were not able to reproduce and pass genetic information.
*In one study, proteinoids mixed with cool water assembled into droplets or microspheres that developed membranes on their surfaces. These are protobionts, with semipermeable and excitable membranes, similar to those found in cells.
*In the final step of chemical evolution, protobionts developed the ability to reproduce and pass genetic information from one generation to the next.

*Some scientists theorize RNA to be the original hereditary molecule. Short polymers of RNA have been synthesized abiotically in the laboratory. In the 1980s, ‘Thomas Cech’ and his associates at the University of Colorado at Boulder discovered that RNA molecules can function as enzymes in cells. This implies that RNA molecules could have replicated in prebiotic cells without the use of protein enzymes.

this a guess work, so totally wrong





*

Variations of RNA molecules could have been produced by mutations and by errors during replication. Natural selection, operating on the different RNAs would have brought about subsequent evolutionary development. This would have fostered the survival of RNA sequences best suited to environmental parameters, such as temperature and salt concentration.

Guess work again, what if there is no mutation , and what test is done to confirm it




*

As the protobionts grew

grow with what nutrient, when no human exist ??




and split, their RNA was passed on to offspring. In time, a diversity of prokaryote cells came into existence. Under the influence of natural selection, the prokaryotes could have given rise to the vast variety of life on Earth.

Thus, a single and simple cell developed from such a complex mechanism, and from that single cell only, we have been evolved.

All what you point out are nothing but gabbage ! How possible is it for cell just to begin develop themselves when nothing exist
what did they feed on,, And How come we have male and female organism..



Seriously, get your ass up. Don't just sit down and say "Yahweh did it" when you don't understand something. Even if you don't know, you have no objective proof that Yahweh did it. Read books, study these things and do your research. Don't you use libraries? Don't you use the internet? Come on now.

This is just a copy and paste, with no meaning !
First answer the questions I highlight ?

Then you can explain how the world come to be. And where the force that is keeping it in the universe, comes from ??