Anselm's Second Ontological Argument

[Clizby WampusCat]

^ No relevant content here. You're only proving I'm right the more you do this. You would not be here at all if you weren't an activist. And you wouldn't be pushing so hard either. Seriously, how many days has it been now? Just lay off the throttle, and I'll be more inclined to believe you.

You still have not provided good evidence for your claim. Your evidence is just that I post here.

Besides, how do you know I'm not actively leveraging your own personal pride here? This is a public forum. I'm literally using your outrage to prove my point. Get it?

No I don't get it, I don't think anyone else does either. Maybe other people will chime in and say that they understand what you are talking about here.

You reason for supporting this claim:

Prove it! Prove you're not here just to mark your territory and keep activism visibly prominent. If we're done here, then you don't need the last word for any other reason than to mark your brand-name and spam atheist ideology on the board. Prove it.

Is that I post here. Do I have to go into why that is not a good reason for belief?

I've ruled them out as imaginary placeholders for actual reasons that you've failed to suggest.

Again this just shows your bad epistemology. You made a claim, I asked why you ruled out other explanations for the claim and you just say because you have not shown these other explanations are true. You must demonstrate that your claim is true. It is not true by default if I cannot demonstrate that it is not true.

You seem to forget I actually know the reasons I am posting on this site. So I know your conclusions based on bad evidence is false.

 

[Amoranemix]

No, You keep confusing objective and ultimately objective. There is not reason that the word car should be defined to mean what it does. We generally agree as a society to what the word car refers to. That can be objective in that context.

But atheists are inconsistent about it. "There is no reason. . ." except when they need to reason. And then, whenever they can take advantage of it, they sabotage language for everyone else.

Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalization.

No problem. Here goes. . .
[alleged proof of God]

Go present your 'proof' where that is on topic.
In this thread, the fans of Anselm's second ontological argument are supposed to defend it.

Well then provide a deductive argument for gods existence and show me how the premises are true. Then we can discuss.

I can, but first you have to consistently value logic or concede that logic is objectively real. And that's the problem. If words such as "logic" have no objective meaning, then we cannot have a fair or rational discussion to begin with.[20] This is the social contract itself. We're trying to make a deal here. You want to buy the horse, but pay as little as possible. I'm selling the horse for a minimum of "objective logic" dollars. I need to see some honest currency before getting into some real horse trading here.
But atheists typically want an escape hatch to bail out of every little thing, and other mixed metaphors. I simply need to know if I can trust you or not.[21]

[20] Of course you can, als long as there is agreement on the meaning of words. Also, logic can be used without using the word logic.
[21] You are being evasive. Presenting a case does not require trust. It requires a case.

Great. Then you should have no difficulty providing such proof. Go ahead.

[no response]

I thought so.

[1] So? I have not claimed otherwise.
[2] What are you talking about ?

I'll just wait for you to catch up.

I have rarely seen so cheap a copout.

Really? Your answer is look at nature? This is your problem. The bible points to nature as proof of god but it never gives evidence that is convincing.

"Convincing" is the flat-earther excuse. Which means it's not much of an excuse to begin with. "Convincing" is an appeal to your persuasive will. The truth is that proof is objective and persuasion is subjective. Sure you can just "nuh-uh" it to death, but that's never a rational argument to the contrary. This isn't about you. It's about the proof you're currently flat-earthing to death.

What seems to escape you is that debating is not merely about who is right, but also about convincing debate opponents. Why else would one debate? One can be right without debating anyone. One can be right all alone on the top of a mountain.
When engaging flat-earthers, what may convince them matters. When writing holy scriptures, what may convince the audience matters.

And I don't need to prove it to you.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - Christopher Hitchens

That allowed Christopher Hitchens to dismiss many Christian and biblical claims.

As I already said, all I need to disprove to assertion for myself is to be aware of at least one person for whom it is false. Which I am - me. Any atheist can use this same intrapersonal means prove it to themselves.

- Which is circular reasoning.
- Which is a purely subjectivist standard you won't grant your opponents.
- Repeating it doesn't make it any less arbitrary or absurd.[22]
- It's not an objective rule, in any case.

[22] It does not make it any less factual either and neither is it meant to. It is meant to help you comprehend what you failed to the first time.

Even if it were possible to be "wrong" about the content of my own thoughts, that would be an excuse. Paul says I am "without excuse". So, even bringing it up is irrelevant.

Agreed. But in this case, you're claiming you're never wrong.

I am sure you would have liked him to claim that.

You're confused. Your apologetic is the one predicated on a vacuous naked assertion.

You have no objective nor specific demonstration of this.

He has : your posts

Thanks. Appreciated.
Non-existence ≠ "the greatest handicap," because a person must necessarily exist in-order to suffer a handicap.

No one is denying that ontological arguments are crap. What one can 'prove' with bad arguments is limited only by one's imagination.

[argument see post 116]
Non-existence ≠ "the greatest handicap," because a person must necessarily exist in-order to suffer a handicap.[23]
Apart from Graham Oppy's critique of Gasking's argument (which was never intended to be serious to begin with), anything done by a maximally great being is never an accomplishment. Omnipotence never risks anything. Omnipotence never endeavors anything, nor learns anything new. Therefore, creation wasn't even trying.[24]

[23] That is a non-sequitur.
[24] So an MGB isn't that great after all. Perhaps something could be greater than the greatest possible, in which case the greatest possible would be impossible.

For the third time, I am claiming only that I can't be wrong about the content of my own thoughts.

Wow. That is some serious hubris.

No, it is not.

I dunno, I'd say that if my second child (whom I will never have) managed to do something, I'd say they managed to overcome a pretty big handicap.

In which case, you're contradicting a non-existent child as-if it were capable of doing something. Non-existent persons can never do anything. Potential ≠ non-potential.

So that non-existent child would be doing something impossible. The greatness of such achievement would incommensurable! Your god's greatness is puny in comparison.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

When I said that, I provided him with he copout he needed.

And never being able to do anything is a pretty big handicap, wouldn't you say?

Handicaps only apply to extant beings.

Says the guy who blamed Eight Foot Manchild for not supporting his claims.

So why shouldn't this greatest possible being (GPB) be capable of overcoming any handicap?

It's a contradiction in-itself, because the GPB would not possess any handicap to begin with. Debility does not equal ability. And we're only talking maximally great ability here.[25]
But this is why I don't normally try to defend the OA, because GPB is more ambiguous than simply defining God according to omnipotence.[26]

[25] Aha. So the greatest possible being has a handicap and the GPB does not have a handicap. Therefore, the GPB is impossible.
I always suspect there was something fishy about the GPB.
[26] No one is defending the OA.

Supposition.

Not if the Christian worldview is correct.

An unwarrented supposition if the Christian worldview is false.

Changing the bridge changes the mathematics. And we build the bridge in such a way that the results of the mathematics show that it is safe to drive across.

So you're flip-flopping. Here, you're admitting you need the math to make the bridge safe to drive across. Not just any math, but such math that you can bet your life on.

People have built bridges with very little math, like rope bridges of precolumbian civilizations.

But this is why I don't normally try to defend the OA, because GPB is more ambiguous than simply defining God according to omnipotence.

Then why are you doing so here?

That hardly qualifies as trying.

My position is the same as that of Eight Foot Manchild - that the mathematics DESCRIBES the bridge. Mathematics is DESCRIPTIVE.

Which is an arbitrary rule that you and 8FM will try to "proof by repeated assertion" to death until I give up. Right? Because you're completely contradicting yourself and dismissing the very math that holds your own chair up as "merely descriptive." Why? To support your confirmation bias; nothing more.

You appear to be quite experienced at proving by repeated assertion. Eight Foot Manchild gave up first. Kylie followed.

This link says that, "the God angle is somewhat of a red herring," "the real news isn't about a Supreme Being," "the formalization of Gödel's ontological proof is unlikely to win over many atheists," and that true believers "might argue the idea of a higher power is one that defies logic by definition," something which you have repeatedly denied.

And yet it works![27]
See, atheism isn't about evidence at all.[28] It's about forcing one's will against any and all evidence.[29] Flat-earthers do it all the time. It's a problem of extreme incredulity assuming that everyone else is an idiot.

[27] Whether Gödel's modal logic works as a tool for computer aided theorem proving is off topic.
[28] Indeed.
[29] You are mistaken. It is about (lack of) belief in a deity.

"Convincing" is the flat-earther excuse. Which means it's not much of an excuse to begin with. "Convincing" is an appeal to your persuasive will. The truth is that proof is objective and persuasion is subjective. Sure you can just "nuh-uh" it to death, but that's never a rational argument to the contrary. This isn't about you. It's about the proof you're currently flat-earthing to death.

Sigh. Do you understand that no one chooses their beliefs?[30] If I am provided convincing evidence of something I have no choice but to believe it. I cannot choose to believe that my car is green when it is actually red just because I don't want it to be red.

[30] I think that if he understood that, he would be wrong.

Now I am not asserting this is true but it follows your argument exactly.

1. Your lack of commitment means I have nothing to worry about.

How is that supposed to follow ?
You lack commitment and supposedly that would mean I have nothing to worry about. But what if you didn't lack commitment ? What if you had a case and were eager to present it ? What would I have to worry about ?

You can't provide an alternative strawman argument that you're not even willing to commit to. Modus Ponens and PSR don't magically change on account of your subjective incredulity alone. PSR = "reason requires a reasoner."[30] If you reject this, then I can simply say that you're asserting you're incapable of reason. That's why I'm concluding you reject logic.

[30]Reason is homonym, i.e. the word has more than one meaning. Hence, reason does not necessarily require a reasoner.

So? Just because a logician can account for logic does not mean it is so. You must demonstrate that.

How can a logician account for logic ?

Also, you don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about, yet your arrogance in claiming that you understand my belief system better than I do myself is plain for all to see.

It'll happen. Just wait. Oh, FYI, it's not a belief system because atheism isn't even a positive claim. There's nothing even remotely systematic about it.

I have seen Christians argue that it is a belief system arguing against atheists that it isn't. The purpose is usually to give the other one the burden of proof.

You may have heard this before, but from what I'm hearing you say about God, if he exists, this should be palatable to you: "God does not do good things because they are good things to do and he is good --no, good is what it is, because God is good." Likewise, truth is what it is because God is truth.

If you think you have a case, you may present it here : www.christianforums.com/threads/euthyphro-dilemma-easily-solved.8200277

Also, "God" is not a scientific claim. Nor is He necessarily an empirical claim. Not every claim necessarily has to be a scientific claim either.

God is a personal opinion.

[Repetition of off topic stuff]

Repeating something off topic does not make it relevant.

In the end, words are all we have. Your very life can and will depend someday on quibbling over "mere words," whether in a court of law or in an ER. Not only that, but atheists are typically equivocation addicts. So think of this as a loving intervention.

You are confusing atheists with Christians.

You give no evidence that your premise is true.

The premise is that logic exists. Do you doubt that ?

Note: Not original with me. (Satire on Plantinga's version)

P1: It is possible that God doesn't exist.
P2: If it is possible that God doesn't exist, then there are some possible worlds wherein God doesn't exist.
P3: If God does not exist in some possible world, then God does not exist in any possible world.
P4: If God does not exist in any possible world, then God does not exist in the actual world.
P5: If God does not exist in the actual world, then God does not exist.
Conclusion: Therefore God does not exist.

Demonstrate P1. You can't, therefore, the conclusion is inconclusive.

The original argument in the OP argues the possibility of God's existence based on the assumption that God is not nonsensical and not inconsistent.
Likewise, the lack of God's existence is not nonsensical and not inconsistent. Therefore, the lack of God's existence is possible.

I think you are confusing validity and soundness. An argument is valid when: IF all the premises were true the conclusion would have to be true. Soundness has to do with the premises. An argument is sound if it is valid and the premises are true.

This modus ponens is both valid and sound. Why? Because the fact that logic is universal. Logic has prescriptive force. PSR dictates that logic necessarily require a logician, regardless of any time, place, situation, or environment. Denying it on will alone (without evidence to the contrary) just proves me more right.

The problem is that you have failed to explain how, nor proven that the PSR makes the argument sound, even under the assumption that the PSR is true. Asserting that people disagreeing with you proves you right, that such people reject logic and don't want to believe, are all bad arguments and bad explanations.

1. is a lack of belief, it says nothing about if a god actually does or does not exist.

"Lack" is deliberately vague (therefore fallacious). I was hoping you'd go there. For at least 12 years, you people were coasting on the "lack of belief" meme, and it never worked then just like it doesn't now.

You have merely claimed, not demonstrated, a fallacy. Vagueness is not necessarily fallacious.

Nirvana fallacy. "If it isn't 100% effective, then we shouldn't bother with it."

I am fully aware of the limits of of science and never even implied that we "shouldn't bother with it." Science is very useful within its own limits. [ . . . ]

Then you must have brought it up again to distract from the fact that you don't have a case.

BTW, Problem of Induction is also closely related to Black Swan Theory. That's also relevant to the discussion.

I don't know what that is, but it sounds like something off topic.

The argument for a perfect chess piece as a necessary piece in every chess set can be put formally:
[ . . . ]

Strawman. We're not arguing for a necessary chess piece, but rather a necessary game designer.

You are mistaken. Cleary the argument is unsound, but your objection is not the reason.

I was referring to your rudeness.

With all due respect: Truth and logic are often rude awakenings. Wake up sleepyhead, we got some logic to pound out here! Facts don't care about feelings, etc. etc.

Most atheists were already aware that truth and logic could not salvage Anselm's second ontological argument. No awakening was required.

 

[Paulomycin]

Excuse me, my point was that you agree with them that you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven. You tell me you disagree on whether people can do that on their own.

What is wrong with mentioning a point of agreement? You both agree you need to follow the commandments to get to heaven.

Because you're playing gotcha, and you'll ignore the key point of disagreement to shove your agenda down my throat. You don't care about dialogue at all. I saw your little back & forth with Clizby and others before it was deleted.

So Jesus taught here that you need to follow every Old Testament law. That apparently includes the law not to mix fabrics, the law to keep Saturday holy, and the law to kill people that disobey their parents, huh?

No. Every moral law. There's a difference. Ceremonial laws and so forth were separate. But atheists only read the bible as fast as they can and overlook the differences (either deliberately or accidentally). 2008 is over. The same old arguments no longer work. You really need to catch up.

What is the difference between the ceremonial law, the moral law, and the judicial law in the Old Testament? | GotQuestions.org

Ah, so the writer of Colossians is least in the Kingdom of Heaven? Jesus said if you teach people to break one little law, you are least in the Kingdom. Colossians ignores Jesus' warning, and tells people they can break the commandment on keeping the Sabbath.

He is in big trouble, huh?

No, because you failed to read it. Then you quotemined my other citations. Jesus is literally our Sabbath rest. You can't "gotcha" that away.

Colossians 2:11-17
Hebrews 4:1-11

How is Jesus our Sabbath Rest? | GotQuestions.org

I didn't ask if you did the commandment to earn it. I asked if you need to keep the commandments to go to heaven. You said yes.

Is that your final answer?

You are asking if you need to keep the commandments to earn going to heaven.

You say this in response to my question about how you are doing at "giving to everyone that asks of you". (Luke 6:30)

Ok, if you are good at giving to everyone that asks of you, give me everything you have, please.

What if I already did that? Hahaaah, "gotcha." Doesn't say I can't earn a living after giving all to charity, taking up my cross, and following Christ.

Wait, what?

Matthew 19:20

The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?”

I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't finished listing them out, because He got the guy on "coveting."

And why didn't Matthew explain that there are many more that you need to follow? He could have cleared up the confusion.

Because his Jewish audience already knew that it was a sequel, and every-single-commandment didn't need to be repeated ad nauseum. Jesus was going down the list and was interrupted before getting to #10. Jesus even repeats the commandments out-of-order. So, you got nothing.

What does it even mean to covet? "Covet" is translated from an obscure Hebrew word, "hamad", which means to desire. Nobody even knows exactly what this commandment forbids.

"Nobody" must mean only those who never read the Bible. Exodus 18, 20, 34, and Deuteronomy 5 & 7. That's Torah law. Coveting means any sort of greed.

But if I don't keep it, I won't go to heaven?

Nobody can keep any of them. It's like you've never talked to a Reformed believer before.

Why did you leave out the fine print?

Because it's not criteria for salvation. You're so consumed with your desperate need for a petty "gotcha," that you're not even paying attention.

 

[Paulomycin]

Rewind.

I have repeatedly asked you if Abraham was wrong to set out to kill Isaac. You have said it was sin.

But only if he actually did it. Good thing God sent that angel, huh? lol.

Suppose somebody set up an IED to explode and kill somebody on the road. In the end, the bomb never goes off and nobody gets hurt. No harm, no foul? That's not how it works. If one sets out to kill a person, and takes the steps that puts another life at risk, he is still liable for what he did.

So now you're comparing direct stabbing (with a specific target) to an indirect IED (with an indiscriminate target). That analogy is a swing and a miss.

I can only evaluate your morality. I cannot evaluate God's morality because I have no good way of knowing what God commands.

Then you should read the Bible more accurately.

Wanting to kill somebody is not illegal.

Thanks for that admission.

But it is illegal to build an alter, and then put firewood on that alter, and then tie up your son, and then put him on the firewood, and then raise a sharp knife with the intention of killing him and burning his body. If you try that, you will end up in the slammer and your son will be taken from you.

Unless God catches you first. <-- Higher authority, remember?

Should I interpret this as another evasion of the question?

First you're "confused," but then you're pretty sure it's definitely an evasion. How can you be trusted?

Then you admitted, "In the end, Genesis says Abraham did not kill Isaac. There. You happy?" <-- Not murder. God drops all charges.

Now you have to start all over again to force your petty "gotcha" game. It keeps failing to stick.

 

[Lion IRC]

you'll ignore the key point of disagreement to shove your agenda down my throat.

LOL
Your profile pic makes it hard for me to imagine someone trying to do that.

 

[Paulomycin]

OK, maybe I did not phrase that as well as I could have. I said, "We all need each other". I should have said, "We all need other people."

But why is that "good?" You're just assuming it is so, or you're hoping I'll agree with it so you don't have to deal with it yourself.

Yes I do. We are social creatures that rely on each other every day. There are hundreds of people that are involved in your life, and in making the things you use.

Which is a fact of nature. It doesn't mean you can derive a value from the fact. It's like you want to bang your head against the wall of "Is-Ought" for another week or so. Is that really something you want to spend your time doing?

 

[Paulomycin]

You still have not provided good evidence for your claim. Your evidence is just that I post here.

You're not even arguing how it's actually not activist spam/marking your territory.

Listen, there's about a hundred things that I'd much rather be doing. But I'm here out of a sense of missionary obligation. There's a hundred things I'm sure you'd rather be doing to live out your (oh so brief) atheist life to the fullest. Thus, I can only conclude you're getting paid or you're a volunteer activist. What else?

No I don't get it, I don't think anyone else does either. Maybe other people will chime in and say that they understand what you are talking about here.

If you're just posting out of empty pride; with no rational content otherwise, then all of my responses are causing you to generate more of it. Get it?

Again this just shows your bad epistemology. You made a claim, I asked why you ruled out other explanations for the claim and you just say because you have not shown these other explanations are true.

No-no-no. Go back and read it. I made a claim, you asked why I ruled out other explanations for the claim, and I'm saying you haven't shown other explanations at all. You don't even have to show they're "true." You simply haven't specified any other possible explanations to begin with!

You seem to forget I actually know the reasons I am posting on this site. So I know your conclusions based on bad evidence is false.

Then why are you hiding your reasons?

 

[Paulomycin]

Your fallacy of choice is the hasty generalization.

So then it's pure hypocrisy to make an argument based on lack of evidence.

In this thread, the fans of Anselm's second ontological argument are supposed to defend it.

So now I'm being bounced back and forth between one atheist that demands proof after they reject Anselm, to another atheist that demands I stay on-topic. You people will do anything to "win" a thread, huh?

[20] Of course you can, als long as there is agreement on the meaning of words. Also, logic can be used without using the word logic.

That's wonderful. Please share this with the rest of your atheist community. That would really help. Because they won't listen to me when I say it.

[21] You are being evasive. Presenting a case does not require trust. It requires a case.

Then the objective case has nothing to do with whether or not the atheist is personally convinced or not.

I thought so.

I see you removed the link to follow this back for reference. Is that what you need to "win?"

Proof of what? Proof of God? You won't let me share it on this thread, but then you demand it on this thread.

I have rarely seen so cheap a copout.

I'm not wasting time on anyone who didn't bother reading the thread to begin with.

What seems to escape you is that debating is not merely about who is right, but also about convincing debate opponents.

Wrong. I don't have to convince anyone. Evidence is objective. Persuasion is subjective. It's about convincing the audience. Not your opponent.

That allowed Christopher Hitchens to dismiss many Christian and biblical claims.

Oh, don't start special pleading now.

[22] It does not make it any less factual either and neither is it meant to. It is meant to help you comprehend what you failed to the first time.

Which you're failing to specify. You're also deliberately omitting reference and citation (arrow) links. Almost as-if you want me to chase around the forums without them.

I am sure you would have liked him to claim that.

It's a package deal included with atheism itself.

He has : your posts

"Your posts" is no a substitute for specified errors.

No one is denying that ontological arguments are crap. What one can 'prove' with bad arguments is limited only by one's imagination.

^ Non-sequitur. Non-existence ≠ "the greatest handicap," has nothing to do with ontological arguments in-general.

[23] That is a non-sequitur.

You're failing to explain "how." But it's not like you were expecting I'd ever hold you accountable to that.

[24] So an MGB isn't that great after all. Perhaps something could be greater than the greatest possible, in which case the greatest possible would be impossible.

How did you even reach that conclusion? Your purely speculative "something" is not anything specific at all. It's just a placeholder you're pretending is an actual argument.

No, it is not.

Because you magically asserted it. One can be wrong about the content of their own thoughts. It's hubris to assume otherwise.

So that non-existent child would be doing something impossible. The greatness of such achievement would incommensurable! Your god's greatness is puny in comparison.

A non-existent child would do nothing because it doesn't exist in the first place.

When I said that, I provided him with he copout he needed.

Now it's like you're posting random responses that don't even relate to the subject that was being discussed.

Says the guy who blamed Eight Foot Manchild for not supporting his claims.

^ Here, for example. It's a simple fact that handicaps apply only to extant beings, but then you're implying I have to support that claim by what, proving that it doesn't apply to non-existent beings? lol.

[25] Aha. So the greatest possible being has a handicap and the GPB does not have a handicap. Therefore, the GPB is impossible.

I was addressing Kylie's argument, which includes a handicap. It wasn't my claim. Pretty sure you're not paying attention to any context.

[26] No one is defending the OA.

If you were paying attention, I was to a certain extent.

An unwarrented supposition if the Christian worldview is false.

But atheists typically refuse Burden of Proof or Burden of Refutation. In both cases, the Christian worldview has never been objectively demonstrated as necessarily false.

People have built bridges with very little math, like rope bridges of precolumbian civilizations.

But not driving cars over them. I said "drive." You skipped past that because you're blowing past entire discussions here.

That hardly qualifies as trying.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. Is someone trying to defend OA, or is no one trying to defend OA?

You appear to be quite experienced at proving by repeated assertion. Eight Foot Manchild gave up first. Kylie followed.

You can't prove that mathematics is not prescriptive. So I guess you're the next to give up.

[27] Whether Gödel's modal logic works as a tool for computer aided theorem proving is off topic.

It still works.

[28] Indeed.

Then stop demanding evidence if you're not going to be honest about it.

[29] You are mistaken. It is about (lack of) belief in a deity.

Where "lack" is deliberately ambiguous.

NOUN

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

^ Which is it, smart guy? You can't say "100% without," because that would be your claim of knowledge of the entire universe. But if you say "not having enough," then you're implying a ratio of belief to non-belief, or a percentage of evidence that you wouldn't care to admit. So which is it?

[30] I think that if he understood that, he would be wrong.

I already responded to this and you're still catching up.

[30]Reason is homonym, i.e. the word has more than one meaning. Hence, reason does not necessarily require a reasoner.

Then you're admitting that you equivocate "reason."

How can a logician account for logic ?

You're going in the wrong direction. It's, "If logic, then logician." Logic only follows when someone is utilizing it.

I have seen Christians argue that it is a belief system arguing against atheists that it isn't. The purpose is usually to give the other one the burden of proof.

I'm not one of your strawman Christians. Just trying to be consistent here. Atheism isn't a positive claim, therefore it's not a belief system. Even though atheists often behave as-if it were. But it's not.

God is a personal opinion.

Your absolute "is" assertion is unsupported.

 

[ewq1938]