Potential Evidence for the Possibility of God

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Ella S., May 20, 2022.

  1. Ella S.

    Ella S. Logoic Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    528
    Some people say that atheists wouldn't accept the existence of God if God himself personally came down to verify his existence. I don't think this is accurate. In fact, I don't think God would need to even go that far to prove his existence to me. Here are some pieces of evidence that we could discover in the future that would make his existence more likely to me. organized from most plausible to least plausible:

    1. If we discover that time predates space
    One of the primary issues with a Creator God is that it implies a causality either without time or before the universe. A "first cause" would still need time to exist in, as far as we know. However, there could be a "first cause" for the 3 spatial dimensions as a product of the temporal one, and this might be decent evidence for the existence of at least a minimally-defined Deist God.

    2. If we discover immaterial minds
    Another issue with the existence of gods or spirits in general is that, as far as we can tell, minds only exist as an emergent phenomenon from matter. How could something that predates matter and all of the fundamental forces have a mind? If we could show this to be possible, it would also provide some evidence for God's possibility. Some theories of Panpsychism like the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe might prove fruitful here, but CTMU would have to demonstrate a functional Theory of Everything to show its veracity, in my opinion. If it does that, it would provide good evidence for a Pantheist God.

    3. If Enochian magic could be used to falsify physical laws
    The idea behind Enochian magic is that Enochian is the language that God spoke the universe into existence with. This actually isn't too far off from some theoretical concepts of a "mathematical universe" or "mathematical monism" where all of reality is an emergent property from some sort of algorithm, essentially a computer simulation of a virtual space. If the code is written in Enochian, and we can hack the source code of the universe, then I think that would provide some evidence for the existence of God given that Enochian was supposedly given to man by angels on behalf of God. Currently, though, "evidence" of the efficacy of Enochian magic is indistinguishable from magical thinking and apophenia.

    4. If we discovered that prayers somehow transmitted into space using a form of previously-undetectable wave
    If we discovered that prayers specifically act as some sort of transmission on a layer of reality that is ordinarily invisible to us, then that would be evidence that prayer might genuinely be communicating with something. Whether that something fits theological concepts of God or not, I would be comfortable saying that whatever is receiving those transmissions is essentially acting in the place of God and could take that title as the object of prayer.

    5. If we make contact with life after death and they affirm God's existence
    While this would not be direct evidence of God, it would be good enough for me. If we somehow discovered a way to talk to spirits of the deceased, not only proving the existence of an afterlife but proving that there is a ruler of the afterlife, then that ruler could be considered a god.

    6. If we proved Young-Earth Creationism
    If Young-Earth Creationism could actually verify its claims, then it genuinely would provide evidence that humanity was spontaneously generated by the hand of God. To do this would be a massive undertaking. We would have to prove that the Earth (and the rest of the universe) is only 6,000 years old, that humans are a product of spontaneous generation and not evolution, and that all of humanity descended from a single pair of humans. However, if we could prove that a literal reading of Genesis lines up with the facts, then that would seem to indicate that whoever wrote Genesis probably knew what they were talking about.
     
    LuisMarco and powessy like this.
  2. 'Amir Alzzalam

    'Amir Alzzalam Šayṭānist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2022
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    118
    Time is relevant, or rather irrelevant, it really doesn't exist without at least two observers.

    This theory discludes the idea that our personal Psyche/Mind/Soul/Self exists. There is no need for a god.

    The other theories are too far-fetched for me to entertain.
    This is why there most certainly is no god.
    • No evidence
    • It’s illogical
    • The preponderance of suffering
    • We don’t need him
    • Life is better without him
     
  3. powessy

    powessy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    144

    I find your thoughts here very interesting. I view the world and all things known to me through a pair of glasses of my own design. Logic, science, math, conceptual thinking and statistical probability’s are of the first things I see and try to figure out.

    For the first 43 years of my life I was an atheist until 8 years ago when I figured powessy out, it has been a roller coaster ever since.

    The problem is they do not teach me of a biblical god as written in the Bible. I can tell people all day long that I hear voices that are trying to understand themselves and teach me thoughts about thoughts but no one is interested to figure this out. I have minds on my mind, more minds on my mind then you could ever even understand but no one can understand this, without seeing it for themselves. I have worlds and small galaxies forming inside my mind that continue to become themselves here more and more. I have descended through several dimensional timelines to find minds trying to become us to figure us out. I have moved instantaneously across space and time to look into other worlds to see and understand other life forms similar to ourselves.

    Even though I do not believe in the biblical god, I do however believe in the god they are teaching me about. I have found enough proof to me that there must be a god, and why he never became something here.

    I hope that all those seeking answers, truly find the answers they need, so that they are content and happy with all that they have become in life, as I have.

    Powessy
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2022
    Ella S. likes this.
  4. Ella S.

    Ella S. Logoic Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    528
    Time existed billions of years before observers, as far as I know.

    Indeed, I do not believe in souls.

    Without more evidence, yes, they are unlikely. They would be less far-fetched with evidence, however, which was the point of my post.

    I don't see the lack of evidence, by itself, as disproving God.

    I think this is an inaccurate statement. There are many conceptions of God that do not violate logical axioms.

    This assumes that God is ethical. According to most understandings of God, God actually wants us to suffer, either as a consequence of our free will or as an act of wrathful punishment.

    I am not sure how this is evidence against his existence.

    I am also not sure how this is evidence against his existence, either.

    I think the fact that the evidence indicates that our universe hasn't been created (since causality seems to be a phenomenon within the universe), and that we have decent models for how the belief in God is ultimately rooted in cognitive errors, are together enough for me to claim that I know God does not exist.

    That's all there is to my argument on that one, honestly, and only the first one has to be debunked for me to believe in God or become agnostic about God's existence. That's why most of the evidence I listed in my post revolves around it.
     
  5. 'Amir Alzzalam

    'Amir Alzzalam Šayṭānist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2022
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    118
    No evidence

    Most things that we accept, we accept on the basis of proof. That proof is not always rock solid (some of it is based on spurious media claims, for example) but there is a standard to which we hold most of our beliefs. Things that don’t meet that standard – the Tooth Fairy, let’s say – we discard as not impossible, but extremely unlikely.

    God, however, many people accept with no proof at all. Belief in God is a product of upbringing, societal and cultural convention, a desire for comfort, and intellectual laziness.

    There is no evidence that God exists. You may have had some kind of personal experience – what we “anecdotal evidence” that has convinced you personally that he’s out there. But most people would concede that that kind of evidence is not evidence at all. It can’t be repeated under test conditions and there are other possible explanations for what may have happened.

    Fact: no-one has ever presented one iota of persuasive evidence that there is a God.

    It’s illogical

    In the absence of evidence, some people try to argue that there “must be” a God because nothing else makes sense.

    This “not making sense” ranges from the naïve (“I just feel that there must be a bigger purpose to life”) to the sophisticated arguments presented by theologians, philosophers, and apologists.

    I cannot present and knock down every instance of these arguments here. However, I can say this: the idea that one can reason God into existence is a failed project. The best anyone has been able to do is to show that God could be an explanation for how the universe got here – and could be the “best available explanation”. I wouldn’t accept either of these, but even I did, they do not constitute a conclusive, logical position.

    If you are comfortable with a “maybe”, then you are welcome to it. But the existence of God has not been logically proven by anyone, ever.

    The preponderance of suffering

    In a recent interview, the British comedian Stephen Fry delivered a vicious, scathing attack on the Judeo-Christian God when asked what he would say if it turned out after he died, that God did in fact exist. He called this God a “maniac”, pointing to a large amount of unnecessary suffering in the world which he, by definition, created and allows.

    The existence of suffering is an impossible problem for believers in an all-good, caring God to solve. Even if they use the wiggle room to argue that without some suffering there can be no charity; or that people who do wrong are punished, they cannot account for the suffering of innocent children and animals, or worse, the devout believers in their faith.

    What kind of God, we may ask – and Fry does, more colorfully – has created a world in which children die in floods, starve to death, and perish in agony from TB and malaria? What kind of God allows people who worship and adore him to be murdered, raped, tortured, and come to countless other hideous ends?

    This does not preclude the existence of any God, of course. God might be, as Fry has it, a maniac. He may be a vicious, sadistic God. Or, like the Greeks and Romans before us, he may be a pantheon of narcissistic Gods who have no interest in looking out for us.

    But a God who was benevolent and loving, as we are told the Christian God is, would never create the world we live in. Believing in him requires either shuttering yourself off from the carnage all around you; or crafting frankly ridiculous excuses (God works in mysterious ways?).

    We don’t need him

    This isn’t exactly an argument against the truth of God, but it is a reason to stop worrying about him. We don’t require God – he is an unnecessary addition to the universe, and it can get along perfectly well without him.

    The most common two arguments for why we “need” God is as a personal saviour or caretaker, and that without him (and religion) we would not know what is morally right and wrong.

    Let me start with the last first.

    Human morality is not brought into existence by God or the Bible. We do not require a commandment to tell us that killing is wrong, and we do not need the threat of eternal damnation to make us do what is right.

    To prove this I need only point out that most Western states operate on the basis of a constitution and the rule of law and have nothing to do with religion or the Bible. Killing someone has legal consequences, and most normal people with a conscience regard it as wrong without the need for a cosmic force to tell them.

    Oh, but I hear you say, surely these laws and rights have a Biblical origin?

    Do you really believe that? Do you think that pre-religious societies had no taboos in regard to the preservation of life, property, and other things we hold dear? That a principle like “do unto others” would not naturally emerge from any group of sentient beings living in the same place?

    This is quite apart from the fact that many of the laws in the Bible are just wicked. We have not, thankfully and for the most part, transferred most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy into modern law. Those Islamic states who have, and which enforce Sharia law, are widely regarded as zones of horror by most sensible people.

    Then: do we need God as a personal savior? Well, some people might. The idea of God might provide comfort and an explanation for the mysteries of the universe. However, it is misleading to say he is “needed”. Many people survive and thrive perfectly well without a God concept or religion – myself being one example. We do not rampage or lose our way or become outcasts. And so, whilst certain individuals may derive comfort from a belief in God – as is their right – this is neither a necessary or a sufficient condition for living a good life.

    Life’s better without him

    Religion is about control and limitation. Rules, laws and rituals that restrict and govern behaviour. In some cases – say the genital mutilation of infants in barbaric rites of passage practised by religions such as Judiasm – they actually persuade nice people to do awful things.

    Which is to say nothing of the countless other horrors committed in the name of God and religion. Suicide bombings, torture, genocide, forced marriages, unwanted babies, war – the list is endless.

    A life without religion and without God thus offers freedom from all of these miseries. It offers a person the opportunity to do what they like, in line with their own moral code, within the parameters of the society in which they live. Each decision to be taken is evaluated on its own merits, weighing up the pros and cons, and is not forced down a path by a pre-existing code of conduct dating from a time of ignorance and superstition.

    Life is better without God and religion encouraging you to make poor choices, and validating them when you do.

    The journey into escaping the God idea, and rejecting religion, can be a long one. For those deeply invested in these notions they may begin by being unable to imagine a meaningful life without them. However, it starts with a seed of doubt. With the sense that a fairy story is at work here – not the solid rock of reality.
     
  6. Ella S.

    Ella S. Logoic Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    528
    I agree that there is currently no evidence for God, which is why I started a thread outlining what could constitute as evidence for God if we discovered it. Lack of evidence is not always positive evidence for something not existing, though.

    It can be, but that's only if we would expect to see evidence if something exists, which would turn that claim into a falsifiable hypothesis.

    This particular argument for the existence of God is illogical, but that does not mean that the concept of God is, itself, illogical or that it is illogical to believe that God exists.

    Even if I think the belief in God is incorrect, you can logically conclude incorrect things for any number of reasons.

    Right, I agree. If God exists, he's incredibly unethical and far removed from anything I would call "good."

    However, the Christian God is a monster. He's only called "all-good" because theologians define "good" as "anything in accordance with God's Will" so that anything God does can be tautologically good.

    If we actually look at what the Christian God does, he intentionally created a world with natural evil and prioritizes mankind's free will above saving them from suffering.

    These are inherently evil acts under almost all ethical philosophies, but they are "good" as theologically defined. God gets a special category so he can commit evil, whereas if a human were to do the same thing he would be evil simply because he isn't God.

    I actually disagree with you here. I do not think that most normal people with a conscience regard killing as wrong on their own. Many cultures throughout history have a taboo against certain kinds of killing, and a few specific kinds of killing are almost universally regarded as unethical; killing your father for sadistic pleasure is universally seen as evil, for instance. However, murder for everything from a slight to one's honor, to test out a new sword, or even just because they're from a different tribe all seems to come very naturally to humans.

    Killing is still accepted by modern cultures, too, with each culture sanctioning different kinds of killing. Most people still accept killing in self-defense, for instance, as well as in a just war. It is only relatively recently that "just war" means only killing combatants, too, since as recently as WW2 civilians of enemy nations were considered free game by most nations.

    Although religion never seemed to really fix this, anyway, with a wide variety of holy wars to showcase for it.

    I agree with you on this point. Most of the laws that supposedly have a "Biblical" origin have, at best, a theological origin. And, as far as I'm concerned, theology is really just advanced apologetics that's been sliding the goal-posts since its inception. Paul had to invent the concept of Heaven when he realized Jesus wasn't coming back to resurrect the dead, for instance, and it's been nonstop twists since then.

    It's to the point where even modern "Christian" institutions like the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church have no real foundation in scripture anymore. Their own systems of ethics are, to a degree, non-Biblical and invented by theologians and gnosiologists post-hoc.

    I agree with this.
     
  7. 'Amir Alzzalam

    'Amir Alzzalam Šayṭānist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2022
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    118
    I'm with Plato on this, in that Man inherently knows the difference between Right and Wrong, we are able to lie to everyone else, but a mentally stable person can never lie to themselves. No one needs religion or politics to tell them when they are committing an evil act, however, for those who act against their conscience these Laws and Regulations have been established.
     
    Ella S. likes this.
  8. powessy

    powessy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    144
    God does not care if you can figure himself out, he only cares that you figured yourselves out.

    The saying above being the truth should then prompt you to then ask the question as to why we never figured ourselves out?

    The veil is a test as you become something again and again, each timeline has a series of questions and answers that opens gates to becoming yourself more and more allowing you to moving up the ladder. These tests start out very simple and should be able to be answered for any species that can figure itself out. Minds that cannot figure themselves out are torn apart and taught nothing here.

    I think it is terrible that the Bible with its huge influence on society has basically covered up the truth and has kept us from understanding ourselves. It is so easy to point fingers at the Bible and it’s god because we are unable to figure anything else out. I have asked many times over and over again how can you figure anything out when you have nothing to teach you about yourself.

    How will you figure yourself out if you cannot become something again, and even if you did how would you understand what it is you need to understand. You have to get on the first step to even start to become yourself and yet mankind has yet to get there, why do you think this is?

    there are minds in the veil that are dead set against us becoming ourselves and they will do anything to make sure we never figure ourselves out.

    So think about this, if we should be able to become something again and again not knowing anything at all, how is it we never became something again???????????????


    The only reason that god would come here is to figure out why nothing keeps becoming something here. Don’t be so sure he is not trying to figure this out.

    Powessy
     
  9. Ella S.

    Ella S. Logoic Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    528
    I think, even within our own culture, we have thoroughly debunked this concept. Countless studies in moral psychology have shown us that what we call our "conscience" is made up of a variety of different emotions and drives, which vary in degree and intensity from person to person.

    This means that everyone's "inherent knowledge" on the difference between right and wrong is different. In fact, it is quite idiosyncratic. I am unsure that any two people have the same conscience. Some people might even have no conscience at all.

    I completely reject the notion that everyone intuitively knows right from wrong. I think, if that were truly the case, we wouldn't have the entire field of ethical philosophy.
     
  10. 'Amir Alzzalam

    'Amir Alzzalam Šayṭānist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2022
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    118
    When I was studying Neurotheology in school, about 6 years ago, Conscience was still very much a thing. Evolutionary Biology explains its development in humans as something that was necessary to their survival. Plato got this, even if he allocated it to our Daimon and not evolution.

    https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/what-part-us-knows-right-wrong
     
  11. Ella S.

    Ella S. Logoic Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    528
    No offense, but not only do I not see you as an authority on the subject merely because you studied it, but I think neurotheology itself is nonsense and completely unscientific. I don't think it gives accurate pictures of biology at all.

    There is a reason why it is considered a field of philosophy and not science. In fact, neurotheology frequently promotes concepts at odds with science, like promoting NDEs and other forms of parapsychology. It is a pseudoscience.
     
  12. 'Amir Alzzalam

    'Amir Alzzalam Šayṭānist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2022
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    118
    No offense taken, you simply no nothing about Neurotheology other than what you read online. Almost every paranormal topic that was discussed in classes was dismissed scientifically, in fact, I took the course in order to better understand ritual work and spiritual agency, which I have. I've never heard of Neurotheology being referred to as a pseudo-science, are you sure you know what Neurotheology is?
     
  13. Ella S.

    Ella S. Logoic Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    528
    Yes, "neurotheology" is a philosophical field whose name was coined by Huxley, and which has nothing to do with science, but this is irrelevant.

    You are claiming that neurotheology has evidence for a universal conscience, and that people inherently know and agree on what is right and what is wrong thanks to their moral intuition.

    I am telling you that moral psychologists have found the exact opposite of your claim, and I am prepared to cite as many studies from that field as you need me to in order to back this up.

    There is a neuroscientific basis for moral reasoning, but that does not mean we all share the same values. As I mentioned, what we call our "conscience" is the product of many different mechanisms, which are idiosyncratic between people.

    I don't know or care what was taught to you in your class, which is part of my point. What is relevant to this discussion is evidence and scientific consensus, not your personal credentials.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2022
  14. 'Amir Alzzalam

    'Amir Alzzalam Šayṭānist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2022
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    118
    No I'm not, I clearly explained that our conscience evolved from the need to survive, as almost all human traits do. Nowhere did I state that Neuroscience implies a universal conscience. People inherently know the difference because it has evolved in humans.

    Talk about pseudoscience, the entire psychology field is one step away from complete quackery. Neuroscience deals with the biological brain.
     
  15. Ella S.

    Ella S. Logoic Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    528
    You claimed that people inherently know that killing is wrong, but that is not true.

    Both statements are irrelevant. You are not making arguments from neuroscience. Neuroscience also agrees that there is not a specific code of ethics inherent to the human brain that makes everyone inherently know that killing is wrong, but a "conscience" is a psychological concept and not a neurological one, anyway.

    Perhaps if you pursued a degree in neuroscience instead of neurotheology, you would have gained a genuine understanding of the field instead of mindlessly parroting your misunderstandings or misinformation. Indeed, perhaps you have genuine understanding or information, but given that you have yet to back up your claims and instead resort to gaslighting and insults, I doubt that you know anything about the topics you claim expertise in.
     
  16. 'Amir Alzzalam

    'Amir Alzzalam Šayṭānist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2022
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    118
    You're irrelevant. Do you understand what 'inherent' means? It's a permanent, essential, or characteristic way, in this respect I'm referring to humans. Conscience is such an inherent trait in humans. Evolutionary Anthropology agrees with this, we inherently know right from wrong, we inherently know when killing is wrong and when it's necessary. Maybe you don't, but normal people do. It's how we evolved as a species.

    Neuroscientists attempted to find the “moral area” in our brain. They never found it. What they did find were several areas throughout the brain that work together, and become our conscience. Scientists refer to these areas as the “moral network”.

    "This network is actually made up of three smaller networks . . . When people find themselves in moral situations, all three networks go to work . . . we have a network of areas that originally evolved to do other things. Over evolutionary time, they began to work together to create a feeling of conscience." - Dr. Fiery Cushman (Moral Psychologist Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.)

    Neurotheology IS a branch of Neuroscience, a BSc is a small degree, I don't claim to be an expert in this field, but obviously, I know a helluva lot more than you do about this science. I don't know what you're trying to get at but your condescending attitude is not appreciated.

    So, what are your qualifications in this area that gives you any credence to debate with me?
     
  17. Ella S.

    Ella S. Logoic Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    528
    False. It's my thread.

    Except we don't all intuitively agree on when killing is wrong and when it's necessary.

    Irrelevant. I have never denied the existence of moral reasoning and, in fact, the quotations you are making here support my argument that the conscience isn't a single thing but a network of different pieces, each of which are a little different from person to person.

    Hence, we do not all intuitively agree on when killing is right and when it's wrong.

    Neurotheology is not a branch of neuroscience, although it may have been taught to you that way. Creationism is also often taught as a branch of biology in religious schools. It is not uncommon for religious studies to pretend to be more based in science than they are.

    As noted before, qualifications are irrelevant to the point of discussion.
     
  18. 'Amir Alzzalam

    'Amir Alzzalam Šayṭānist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2022
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    118
    It being your thread hardly makes you relevant.
    Maybe YOU don't but logical and normal people do inherently agree on when killing if right or wrong.
    Backpeddle much?
    Neurotheology is the interdisciplinary science of religious and spiritual experience.
    https://www.labroots.com/trending/neuroscience/20917/neurotheology-thing
    In other words you are unqualified to argue any of this. I figured as much.
     
  19. Ella S.

    Ella S. Logoic Logician

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2021
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    528
    It certainly makes me relevant to the thread.

    Logic is a form of inference and it gives structure to argumentation. It cannot, on its own, form an ethical philosophy.

    Indeed, within ethical philosophy, there is a recurring issue that different people, with different moral intuitions, are lead by those intuitions towards different formalizations of them.

    For instance, under many Deontological models, it is never okay to kill another human being, even in self-defense. Under Utilitarian models, it is often okay to kill other human beings outside of the prerequisite for self-defense, so long as killing them increases the total/average happiness, preference, or welfare.

    Both models are arrived at and supported by the moral intuitions of those who adhere to them. This is a deeper issue with human nature as a whole.

    Not at all. In my first mention of the conscience, I explicitly stated how it is explained in psychology, affirming its existence. You can go back and read the thread if you wish.

    This is the gaslighting that I was talking about in my previous reply.

    Neurotheology is a school of philosophy that is sometimes informed by science (as most modern philosophies are). Calling it interdisciplinary is not wrong, but calling it a science is. Thinking that it is always informed by genuine knowledge of neuroscience is a mistake. Thus, neurotheology is, itself, not a science and is not comparable to neuroscience.

    In other words, arguments involving qualifications are highly fallacious.

    They are an Argument from Authority because they have nothing to do with a logical analysis of the facts, a Genetic Fallacy because it carries the connotation that qualification somehow makes someone's argument better, and in this case in particular, you are using it as an Ad Hominem to discredit me when you cannot back up your own unfounded claims.

    Your arguments are thoroughly illogical.

    I am open to being proven wrong, but, unfortunately, you seem more concerned with reminding everyone about your degrees than forming a rational argument.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2022
    Craz likes this.
  20. 'Amir Alzzalam

    'Amir Alzzalam Šayṭānist

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2022
    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    118
    o_O
    o_O
     

Share This Page