OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 04:11:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: William Lane Craig  (Read 2255 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« on: January 04, 2011, 01:28:29 PM »

What are your thoughts regarding his works?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

I am quite a follower of him on youtube, I also enjoy reading the number of articles he has.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2011, 02:29:21 PM »

As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2011, 02:56:21 PM »

Sorry, didn't get any further than the opening page, with it's accompanying images.  Teeth just a little too white, hair's just a little too perfectly manufactured, his ties are just a little too patterned (though well-tied.  I respect a nice full windsor).  The whole thing screamed pre-packaged evangelical.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2011, 06:12:42 AM »

I can't judge him in comparison to other scholars in his same area of expertise, but he is a good source for the Christian who wants to get a basic understanding of some of the more popular arguments for Christianity.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2011, 02:43:31 AM »

As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.

Are his arguments for Christianity closer to a popular level than that of Swinburne? I tried reading Swinburne and did fine with most of it, but then he goes into that funky logic stuff and I have no clue what he's talking about.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2011, 03:08:19 AM »

It kind of surprises me Swinburne is an EO Christian.

I think the reason he keeps repeating himself is because Ive yet to see one debate tear down his opening statement and replace it with a better one. The Peter Atkins one was fantastic, the man didn't even try to attempt it.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2011, 04:47:29 AM »

Greg Bahnsen was one of the best presup apologists. He mastered that style and did pretty well with it. He past away in 1995.

http://www.sermonaudio.ca/bahnsen/BahnsenVsStein_TheGreatDebate-DoesGodExist.mp3 (the famous debate he was mostly known for)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 04:50:32 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2011, 04:38:43 AM »

I sometimes think Bill is exactly what many college-level/college educated people need to read. When it comes to apologetics, I tend to be far more pragmatic than dogmatic.

For instance, in the philosophy or religion I will always prefer Swinburne, Plantinga, or even MacIntyre (I know he's in Ethics, but much of what he says can easily cross over into religion) over Bill. At the same time, I can't hand Plantinga's "God and Other Minds" to a sophomore in college who is doubting his faith or questioning Christianity; I can, however, give him "A Reasonable Faith" and guide him through it.

I still think we're missing too many Continental philosophers of Religion who are Christians (I purposefully exclude Gianni Vattimo, John Caputo, Peter Rollins, or others). I'm not necessarily referring to those in the neo-Marxist or post-Marxist tradition, but simply someone who can write in an existential format and is easy for the public to understand. The philosophy of religion is almost exclusively analytical (if one seeks to be orthodox that is), and I think that's a shame since Christianity is an existential religion.

Anyway, I digress. I think Bill's works are fantastic for college students. He doesn't offer a lot of original thoughts and he's not a philosophic innovator (though he tries to be). But that's not a bad thing. Rather, he's a synthesizer and takes from different philosophies to paint a bigger picture. This means that his explanations will be less technical and a bit more sloppy, which is fine and affords him the chance to not clean it up (in certain situations) because it would force him to get bogged down in the details. I myself am a synthesizer when it comes to philosophy (though I do have two theories that I want to develop at some point that would be innovative, even though they're ancient), so I'm certainly not putting him down by labeling him a synthesizer. Few people can be innovators like Plantinga (who's concept of warrant was almost entirely new) or MacIntyre (who's virtue ethics helped found a revolution, though in all fairness Philippa Foot really worked on it prior to MacIntyre).

The three issues I have with Bill's philosophy are as follows:

1) His attitude and demeanor when debating atheists, especially hostile ones
2) His over-reliance on the Kalaam argument, to the exclusion of other cosmological arguments (likewise, I just don't think the Kalaam is that strong as it has to consistently be unpacked)
3) He's too Aristotelean and doesn't allow for mystery as a legitimate answer, leading to some questionable beliefs concerning God and time. In fairness, he would say that he does allow for mystery, but it really doesn't come across in his writings or debates
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 04:42:08 AM by theo philosopher » Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2011, 07:49:15 AM »

As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.

agreed.
Logged
Incognito777
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: N/A
Posts: 310


« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2014, 01:14:18 AM »

As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.

I disagree. You made an assertion, but gave no example, evidence, or argument in support. The philosopher J.P. Moreland said that Dr. Craig is the greatest apologist in the last half century. I would add that William Lane Craig is the best debater I've ever heard. Nobody has a more in-depth knowledge of the Kalam Cosmological argument, the nature of time (as it relates to Christian theism) and the Axiological (moral argument) than William Lane Craig.
Logged
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 803



« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2014, 03:45:15 AM »

WLC has been heavily influenced by Plantiga, and frequently says that he finds him to be the best Christian philosopher we have.

Personally, I think WLC is the tops.  He rarely does speaking engagements, preferring instead to take the fight to where it is needed by debating anti-theists. 

As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.

I remember him saying that he repeats himself for the sake of the audience, most of whom are not taking notes and would not therefor realize if his opponent failed to respond to one of his points.  Thus, he repeats his case to make it clear that the issue was not dealt with.

For this reason he rarely needs to make his case stronger.
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2014, 03:58:07 AM »

You misunderstand. Some of what he says is BS. He has been shown that it's BS. Christians have shown him that it's BS. And someone who is intellectually honest would admit that it is BS and not continue repeating it. Or at the very least he would see that it is hurting the cause generally and choose to use other arguments and examples.

His being terribly redundant and repeating 90% of the same script each time he debates (what you are referring to) is not about his intellectual cowardice, but rather his intellectual laziness.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 803



« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2014, 04:25:29 AM »

You misunderstand. Some of what he says is BS. He has been shown that it's BS. Christians have shown him that it's BS. And someone who is intellectually honest would admit that it is BS and not continue repeating it. Or at the very least he would see that it is hurting the cause generally and choose to use other arguments and examples.

His being terribly redundant and repeating 90% of the same script each time he debates (what you are referring to) is not about his intellectual cowardice, but rather his intellectual laziness.

Examples?
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 803



« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2014, 09:27:54 AM »

You misunderstand. Some of what he says is BS. He has been shown that it's BS. Christians have shown him that it's BS. And someone who is intellectually honest would admit that it is BS and not continue repeating it. Or at the very least he would see that it is hurting the cause generally and choose to use other arguments and examples.

His being terribly redundant and repeating 90% of the same script each time he debates (what you are referring to) is not about his intellectual cowardice, but rather his intellectual laziness.

Examples?



That was for you, Asteriktos  Wink
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,189



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2014, 09:40:00 AM »

As said, Prof. Craig is probably the best apologist for the fundaments of theism and Christianity in public debate today.

Being an excellen apologist and debater is not the same as being a philosopher. A very good philosophical argument may well be so arcane for the general public to the point of being useless in public debates.

In public debates your main skill is rethoric and if you are an ethical person it  will be rethoric based on real facts and not in the skill to convince only. Actually, Schopenhauer if I'm not mistaken, says that rethoric is exclusevily the skilfull use of true facts and logic as basis to convince, whereas "eristiscs" would be the flawed or ill-intended use of falacies and psychological tricks to convince without any real reason.

Prof. Craig is clearly a very good and uniquely informed debater and apologist. His properly philosophical work seems to be in the are of the theology of time, and I haven't read anything more substantial to even know what it looks like.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 09:40:31 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 803



« Reply #15 on: May 19, 2014, 09:56:30 AM »

As said, Prof. Craig is probably the best apologist for the fundaments of theism and Christianity in public debate today.

Being an excellen apologist and debater is not the same as being a philosopher. A very good philosophical argument may well be so arcane for the general public to the point of being useless in public debates.

In public debates your main skill is rethoric and if you are an ethical person it  will be rethoric based on real facts and not in the skill to convince only. Actually, Schopenhauer if I'm not mistaken, says that rethoric is exclusevily the skilfull use of true facts and logic as basis to convince, whereas "eristiscs" would be the flawed or ill-intended use of falacies and psychological tricks to convince without any real reason.

Prof. Craig is clearly a very good and uniquely informed debater and apologist. His properly philosophical work seems to be in the are of the theology of time, and I haven't read anything more substantial to even know what it looks like.

But WLC is a philosopher.  I must agree with you somewhat, in that I think he is a populariser of the key points of many scientists and fellow philosophers.  I don't know of any raw-intellectual material that he's generated personally, but he has honed the works of others and presented them in concise groups of premises.  Still, I've noticed that people (usually his non-believing detractors) label him as merely as "Christian apologist" while his opponents have their full titles given to them.
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,189



WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 19, 2014, 10:09:00 AM »

As said, Prof. Craig is probably the best apologist for the fundaments of theism and Christianity in public debate today.

Being an excellen apologist and debater is not the same as being a philosopher. A very good philosophical argument may well be so arcane for the general public to the point of being useless in public debates.

In public debates your main skill is rethoric and if you are an ethical person it  will be rethoric based on real facts and not in the skill to convince only. Actually, Schopenhauer if I'm not mistaken, says that rethoric is exclusevily the skilfull use of true facts and logic as basis to convince, whereas "eristiscs" would be the flawed or ill-intended use of falacies and psychological tricks to convince without any real reason.

Prof. Craig is clearly a very good and uniquely informed debater and apologist. His properly philosophical work seems to be in the are of the theology of time, and I haven't read anything more substantial to even know what it looks like.

But WLC is a philosopher.  I must agree with you somewhat, in that I think he is a populariser of the key points of many scientists and fellow philosophers.  I don't know of any raw-intellectual material that he's generated personally, but he has honed the works of others and presented them in concise groups of premises.  Still, I've noticed that people (usually his non-believing detractors) label him as merely as "Christian apologist" while his opponents have their full titles given to them.

Well, for one, I don't think there is nothing "mere" about being an apologist, and one at his level. I wish I could defend the faith like that. From the debates I've watched on Youtube, many of his opponents titles are absolutely irrelevant for the issues they wanted to pontificate on.  The very fact their titles are mentioned is an eristic tool itself, trying to gain people by an appeal to authority.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 803



« Reply #17 on: May 19, 2014, 10:27:36 AM »

As said, Prof. Craig is probably the best apologist for the fundaments of theism and Christianity in public debate today.

Being an excellen apologist and debater is not the same as being a philosopher. A very good philosophical argument may well be so arcane for the general public to the point of being useless in public debates.

In public debates your main skill is rethoric and if you are an ethical person it  will be rethoric based on real facts and not in the skill to convince only. Actually, Schopenhauer if I'm not mistaken, says that rethoric is exclusevily the skilfull use of true facts and logic as basis to convince, whereas "eristiscs" would be the flawed or ill-intended use of falacies and psychological tricks to convince without any real reason.


Prof. Craig is clearly a very good and uniquely informed debater and apologist. His properly philosophical work seems to be in the are of the theology of time, and I haven't read anything more substantial to even know what it looks like.

But WLC is a philosopher.  I must agree with you somewhat, in that I think he is a populariser of the key points of many scientists and fellow philosophers.  I don't know of any raw-intellectual material that he's generated personally, but he has honed the works of others and presented them in concise groups of premises.  Still, I've noticed that people (usually his non-believing detractors) label him as merely as "Christian apologist" while his opponents have their full titles given to them.

Well, for one, I don't think there is nothing "mere" about being an apologist, and one at his level. I wish I could defend the faith like that. From the debates I've watched on Youtube, many of his opponents titles are absolutely irrelevant for the issues they wanted to pontificate on.  The very fact their titles are mentioned is an eristic tool itself, trying to gain people by an appeal to authority.

I believe that some appeal to authority is helpful, but yeah, it can be over-stated.  This is particularly so when it comes to scientists.  I've seen some of the scientists debated say some of the most tunnel-visioned, illogical trash only to have atheists say "He's a scientist! He knows what he's talking about!".  The debates with Dr Lawrence Krauss comes to mind.
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA- Denver
Posts: 381



« Reply #18 on: May 19, 2014, 08:24:19 PM »

William Lane Craig is often superior to his secular interlocutors, but I can think of several Christian Philosophers better at what they do, such as:

David Bentley Hart
Alvin Plantinga
Edward Feser
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,381



« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2014, 08:37:47 PM »

Monothelete
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 08:37:59 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,971


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #20 on: May 19, 2014, 09:42:10 PM »

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 09:43:33 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,608



« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2014, 11:07:24 PM »

Alvin Plantinga

I admit I haven't read anything from William Lane Craig, but I certainly love Plantinga. Pretty cool that I got to eat a meal with him (and a handful of other students/professors) I guess.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 11:07:51 PM by Nephi » Logged
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 803



« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2014, 12:42:17 PM »

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.

I keep waiting for people who claim WLC is unethical to provide specifics and examples for their assertions.  What I find unethical is calling someone unethical and then providing nothing to back it up. 
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,971


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2014, 12:45:08 PM »

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.

I keep waiting for people who claim WLC is unethical to provide specifics and examples for their assertions.  What I find unethical is calling someone unethical and then providing nothing to back it up. 
I'd be happy to discuss it in PM with you.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
john_mo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 803



« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2014, 01:21:54 PM »

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.

I keep waiting for people who claim WLC is unethical to provide specifics and examples for their assertions.  What I find unethical is calling someone unethical and then providing nothing to back it up. 
I'd be happy to discuss it in PM with you.

Is there a particular reason that it can't be made public?
Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.

—G.K. Chesterton
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,971


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2014, 04:50:13 PM »

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.

I keep waiting for people who claim WLC is unethical to provide specifics and examples for their assertions.  What I find unethical is calling someone unethical and then providing nothing to back it up. 
I'd be happy to discuss it in PM with you.

Is there a particular reason that it can't be made public?
I think it would be unprofitable.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2014, 05:07:28 PM »

Craig endorses several heresies including modalism, apollinarianism, monothelitism, denial of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal spiration of the Spirit.

I also consider him to be an unethical man and a poor philosopher. It's telling that he's considered a great evangelical philosopher.

I keep waiting for people who claim WLC is unethical to provide specifics and examples for their assertions.  What I find unethical is calling someone unethical and then providing nothing to back it up. 
I'd be happy to discuss it in PM with you.

Is there a particular reason that it can't be made public?
I think it would be unprofitable.

Such a tease. PM me as well with the juicy details, please. I listen to this guy, so I'd appreciate it.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 05:07:45 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.105 seconds with 54 queries.