Nazis were Catholic?

[ding]

None that you would accept.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal. For something to be eternal it must be unchanging. Therefore, it must be no thing. Spirit is no thing. Space and time were created from no thing.

Because you say so, otherwise, it makes no sense. No logic. No facts. Nothing.

No. It is because you have nothing better to offer. You can't even tell me where my logic failed.

Saying it isn't logical isn't the same thing as explaining the failure or flaw in the logic, Taz.

The facts are that no thing can exist outside of space or time; not energy, not matter. Matter and energy cannot be eternal without thermal equilibrium. So science tells us that the only thing that can exist outside of space and time and be eternal is no thing. Spirit is no thing. You being a thing, you can't possibly understand a no thing.

You don’t know what can exist or not outside of time and space. None. Zero, nada. And science called, they said for you to stfu.

Taz, I do know that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time. If matter and energy exist outside of our space and time then it must exist inside of someone else's space and time. Hence the statement matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time is 100% correct and true.

Science called again and insisted that you stfu.

Why so angry, Taz?

 

[Taz]

Spirit (Ruach) is metaphysically definable, thus, not God.
God created the Heaven (metaphysical) and Earth (physical).

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Of course there are other options, you’re simply too dense to entertain them.

Lay it on me then. I'm more than willing to entertain your ideas on the subject.

You don’t know who or what made the material world. It could be the great spaghetti monster, or a dog named Ralph. Or anything we haven’t thought of yet.

I know with 100% certainty that there are no other options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Your great spaghetti monster, assuming he is spirit rather than matter, would be an example of spirit creating the material world. Your dog named Ralph would be an example of everything proceeding from the material world. See? No middle ground.

You know, lol. Gawd you’re a simpleton.

 

[ding]

^ dunning effect

 

[anynameyouwish]

Spirit (Ruach) is metaphysically definable, thus, not God.
God created the Heaven (metaphysical) and Earth (physical).

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Of course there are other options, you’re simply too dense to entertain them.

Lay it on me then. I'm more than willing to entertain your ideas on the subject.

You don’t know who or what made the material world. It could be the great spaghetti monster, or a dog named Ralph. Or anything we haven’t thought of yet.

I know with 100% certainty that there are no other options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Your great spaghetti monster, assuming he is spirit rather than matter, would be an example of spirit creating the material world. Your dog named Ralph would be an example of everything proceeding from the material world. See? No middle ground.

what if the "world"/universe was created in a test tube?

perhaps, in a far off dimension, a young ethereal being is looking at us through his microscope and saying..."hey pop! my science experiments' science experiment just created life!"

 

[ding]

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Of course there are other options, you’re simply too dense to entertain them.

Lay it on me then. I'm more than willing to entertain your ideas on the subject.

You don’t know who or what made the material world. It could be the great spaghetti monster, or a dog named Ralph. Or anything we haven’t thought of yet.

I know with 100% certainty that there are no other options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Your great spaghetti monster, assuming he is spirit rather than matter, would be an example of spirit creating the material world. Your dog named Ralph would be an example of everything proceeding from the material world. See? No middle ground.

what if the "world"/universe was created in a test tube?

perhaps, in a far off dimension, a young ethereal being is looking at us through his microscope and saying..."hey pop! my science experiments' science experiment just created life!"

Then it would have proceeded from the material world, but you would be left asking where did that world proceed from.

 

[ding]

I didn’t say the G-d of Abraham is related to or dependent on the material world. Quite the opposite. The G-d of Abraham is independent of the material world. The material world is dependent upon the G-d of Abraham as the G-d of Abraham created the material world.

You stated that the “Spirit of God” was God.
This is incorrect.
God has no attributes as attributes would deny the oneness of the Creator.
Not even Moshe was granted the knowledge of God’s “Kavod” because God cannot be understood by any of His creations.

I believe God is existence.

Nope.
God cannot be defined by anything that is not a perfect unity.

I don’t believe God can be defined period. We do the best we can with the words and concepts that we know.

There are only two possible boundary conditions either the material world was created by spirit or the material world created spirit. The former view is the one held by deists and theists. The latter view is the one held by atheists.

The account of Genesis tells us the material world was created by spirit and that man is a product of the material world.

Where does Genesis state that the material world was created y spirit?

Are you telling me that you don't believe the essence of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 isn't about G-d creating the material world and man being a product of the material world?

So when I say spirit I am using that word to distinguish between a material world that was created from nothing versus a material world that was created from no thing.

Think of spiritual or spirit as "no thing" and material as "thing."

And when you think of a "no thing" think of something that you can't understand but you know it is infinitely intelligent and sentient. I choose spirit because the debate is over materialism and spiritualism. That is the heart of the question.

 

[Taz]

Of course there are other options, you’re simply too dense to entertain them.

Lay it on me then. I'm more than willing to entertain your ideas on the subject.

You don’t know who or what made the material world. It could be the great spaghetti monster, or a dog named Ralph. Or anything we haven’t thought of yet.

I know with 100% certainty that there are no other options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Your great spaghetti monster, assuming he is spirit rather than matter, would be an example of spirit creating the material world. Your dog named Ralph would be an example of everything proceeding from the material world. See? No middle ground.

what if the "world"/universe was created in a test tube?

perhaps, in a far off dimension, a young ethereal being is looking at us through his microscope and saying..."hey pop! my science experiments' science experiment just created life!"

Then it would have proceeded from the material world, but you would be left asking where did that world proceed from.

Where did god come from?

 

[ding]

Lay it on me then. I'm more than willing to entertain your ideas on the subject.

You don’t know who or what made the material world. It could be the great spaghetti monster, or a dog named Ralph. Or anything we haven’t thought of yet.

I know with 100% certainty that there are no other options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Your great spaghetti monster, assuming he is spirit rather than matter, would be an example of spirit creating the material world. Your dog named Ralph would be an example of everything proceeding from the material world. See? No middle ground.

what if the "world"/universe was created in a test tube?

perhaps, in a far off dimension, a young ethereal being is looking at us through his microscope and saying..."hey pop! my science experiments' science experiment just created life!"

Then it would have proceeded from the material world, but you would be left asking where did that world proceed from.

Where did god come from?

Did you miss the part of the discussion where we discussed the first cause conundrum?

 

[Taz]

You don’t know who or what made the material world. It could be the great spaghetti monster, or a dog named Ralph. Or anything we haven’t thought of yet.

I know with 100% certainty that there are no other options. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

Your great spaghetti monster, assuming he is spirit rather than matter, would be an example of spirit creating the material world. Your dog named Ralph would be an example of everything proceeding from the material world. See? No middle ground.

what if the "world"/universe was created in a test tube?

perhaps, in a far off dimension, a young ethereal being is looking at us through his microscope and saying..."hey pop! my science experiments' science experiment just created life!"

Then it would have proceeded from the material world, but you would be left asking where did that world proceed from.

Where did god come from?

Did you miss the part of the discussion where we discussed the first cause conundrum?

I want facts, proof. You have personal fartsmoke only.

 

[Indeependent]

You stated that the “Spirit of God” was God.
This is incorrect.
God has no attributes as attributes would deny the oneness of the Creator.
Not even Moshe was granted the knowledge of God’s “Kavod” because God cannot be understood by any of His creations.

I believe God is existence.

Nope.
God cannot be defined by anything that is not a perfect unity.

I don’t believe God can be defined period. We do the best we can with the words and concepts that we know.

There are only two possible boundary conditions either the material world was created by spirit or the material world created spirit. The former view is the one held by deists and theists. The latter view is the one held by atheists.

The account of Genesis tells us the material world was created by spirit and that man is a product of the material world.

Where does Genesis state that the material world was created y spirit?

Are you telling me that you don't believe the essence of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 isn't about G-d creating the material world and man being a product of the material world?

So when I say spirit I am using that word to distinguish between a material world that was created from nothing versus a material world that was created from no thing.

Think of spiritual or spirit as "no thing" and material as "thing."

And when you think of a "no thing" think of something that you can't understand but you know it is infinitely intelligent and sentient. I choose spirit because the debate is over materialism and spiritualism. That is the heart of the question.

Do you think anything God created is truly of any significance in relation to God?
To God, there is no difference between the physical and the metaphysical.
The difference is only to mortal man to deal with.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
what was "passed down orally"???


the spoken Religion of Antiquity -

what should have been the religion, not the history lesson - is that found only in your language ... whichever in whatever form fancied by your community.

.

But I do agree with you guys that Jesus was just a man.

jesus was a prophet ...

Cool story bro...
Do you understand anything about prophecy?

.

Do you understand anything about prophecy?

oh, have you a clue ...

No one born post 2nd Temple has a clue.
We do know that a prophesy is vague and a prophet has to relate his/her prophecy to Torah scholars in order to take a stab at what it means.
The only prophet who did not need to confer with others was Moshe.
Regardless of one’s separation from worldly matters,
prophecy is a gift.
Prophecy is not granted to one when not in a serene state.

.

No one born post 2nd Temple has a clue.

were that true, not having a clue there would not have been any prophecies by anyone ever however you came to your conclusion ... beyond that there is no other reason you gave jesus was not a prophet other than not having proclaimed or been proclaimed as being one.

We do know that a prophesy is vague and a prophet has to relate his/her prophecy to Torah scholars in order to take a stab at what it means.

no, jesus did not do that ... certainly.

Prophecy is not granted to one when not in a serene state.

would jesus have had to have known ... serene state is not far enough, sinless whether serene or not would be the criteria, the Religion of Antiquity.

how about prophecy / prophet by example ... the unjust conclusion not yet reconciled. the crucifixion.

 

[Indeependent]

.

But I do agree with you guys that Jesus was just a man.

jesus was a prophet ...

Cool story bro...
Do you understand anything about prophecy?

.

Do you understand anything about prophecy?

oh, have you a clue ...

No one born post 2nd Temple has a clue.
We do know that a prophesy is vague and a prophet has to relate his/her prophecy to Torah scholars in order to take a stab at what it means.
The only prophet who did not need to confer with others was Moshe.
Regardless of one’s separation from worldly matters,
prophecy is a gift.
Prophecy is not granted to one when not in a serene state.

.

No one born post 2nd Temple has a clue.

were that true, not having a clue there would not have been any prophecies by anyone ever however you came to your conclusion ... beyond that there is no other reason you gave jesus was not a prophet other than not having proclaimed or been proclaimed as being one.

We do know that a prophesy is vague and a prophet has to relate his/her prophecy to Torah scholars in order to take a stab at what it means.

no, jesus did not do that ... certainly.

Prophecy is not granted to one when not in a serene state.

would jesus have had to have known ... serene state is not far enough, sinless whether serene or not would be the criteria, the Religion of Antiquity.

how about prophecy / prophet by example ... the unjust conclusion not yet reconciled. the crucifixion.

Your presumption is predicated upon the divinity of Jesus.
I hold no such presumption.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
jesus was a prophet ...

Cool story bro...
Do you understand anything about prophecy?

.

Do you understand anything about prophecy?

oh, have you a clue ...

No one born post 2nd Temple has a clue.
We do know that a prophesy is vague and a prophet has to relate his/her prophecy to Torah scholars in order to take a stab at what it means.
The only prophet who did not need to confer with others was Moshe.
Regardless of one’s separation from worldly matters,
prophecy is a gift.
Prophecy is not granted to one when not in a serene state.

.

No one born post 2nd Temple has a clue.

were that true, not having a clue there would not have been any prophecies by anyone ever however you came to your conclusion ... beyond that there is no other reason you gave jesus was not a prophet other than not having proclaimed or been proclaimed as being one.

We do know that a prophesy is vague and a prophet has to relate his/her prophecy to Torah scholars in order to take a stab at what it means.

no, jesus did not do that ... certainly.

Prophecy is not granted to one when not in a serene state.

would jesus have had to have known ... serene state is not far enough, sinless whether serene or not would be the criteria, the Religion of Antiquity.

how about prophecy / prophet by example ... the unjust conclusion not yet reconciled. the crucifixion.

Your presumption is predicated upon the divinity of Jesus.
I hold no such presumption.

.

Your presumption is predicated upon the divinity of Jesus.
I hold no such presumption.

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” - - “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

the Religion of Antiquity was set long before jesus, they simply had a grasp for its meaning something your documents, bibles fail to convey in the least.

 

[Indeependent]

Cool story bro...
Do you understand anything about prophecy?

.

Do you understand anything about prophecy?

oh, have you a clue ...

No one born post 2nd Temple has a clue.
We do know that a prophesy is vague and a prophet has to relate his/her prophecy to Torah scholars in order to take a stab at what it means.
The only prophet who did not need to confer with others was Moshe.
Regardless of one’s separation from worldly matters,
prophecy is a gift.
Prophecy is not granted to one when not in a serene state.

.

No one born post 2nd Temple has a clue.

were that true, not having a clue there would not have been any prophecies by anyone ever however you came to your conclusion ... beyond that there is no other reason you gave jesus was not a prophet other than not having proclaimed or been proclaimed as being one.

We do know that a prophesy is vague and a prophet has to relate his/her prophecy to Torah scholars in order to take a stab at what it means.

no, jesus did not do that ... certainly.

Prophecy is not granted to one when not in a serene state.

would jesus have had to have known ... serene state is not far enough, sinless whether serene or not would be the criteria, the Religion of Antiquity.

how about prophecy / prophet by example ... the unjust conclusion not yet reconciled. the crucifixion.

Your presumption is predicated upon the divinity of Jesus.
I hold no such presumption.

.

Your presumption is predicated upon the divinity of Jesus.
I hold no such presumption.

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani” - - “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

the Religion of Antiquity was set long before jesus, they simply had a grasp for its meaning something your documents, bibles fail to convey in the least.

I don’t get the relevance of the quote.
Saviors don’t die.

 

[ding]

I believe God is existence.

Nope.
God cannot be defined by anything that is not a perfect unity.

I don’t believe God can be defined period. We do the best we can with the words and concepts that we know.

There are only two possible boundary conditions either the material world was created by spirit or the material world created spirit. The former view is the one held by deists and theists. The latter view is the one held by atheists.

The account of Genesis tells us the material world was created by spirit and that man is a product of the material world.

Where does Genesis state that the material world was created y spirit?

Are you telling me that you don't believe the essence of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 isn't about G-d creating the material world and man being a product of the material world?

So when I say spirit I am using that word to distinguish between a material world that was created from nothing versus a material world that was created from no thing.

Think of spiritual or spirit as "no thing" and material as "thing."

And when you think of a "no thing" think of something that you can't understand but you know it is infinitely intelligent and sentient. I choose spirit because the debate is over materialism and spiritualism. That is the heart of the question.

Do you think anything God created is truly of any significance in relation to God?
To God, there is no difference between the physical and the metaphysical.
The difference is only to mortal man to deal with.

I believe you are missing the point. Genesis is not a fairy tale it is ancient man’s allegorical accounts of the creation of the material world by the G-d of Abraham and the recognition that man is a product of that creation.

 

[Indeependent]

Nope.
God cannot be defined by anything that is not a perfect unity.

I don’t believe God can be defined period. We do the best we can with the words and concepts that we know.

There are only two possible boundary conditions either the material world was created by spirit or the material world created spirit. The former view is the one held by deists and theists. The latter view is the one held by atheists.

The account of Genesis tells us the material world was created by spirit and that man is a product of the material world.

Where does Genesis state that the material world was created y spirit?

Are you telling me that you don't believe the essence of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 isn't about G-d creating the material world and man being a product of the material world?

So when I say spirit I am using that word to distinguish between a material world that was created from nothing versus a material world that was created from no thing.

Think of spiritual or spirit as "no thing" and material as "thing."

And when you think of a "no thing" think of something that you can't understand but you know it is infinitely intelligent and sentient. I choose spirit because the debate is over materialism and spiritualism. That is the heart of the question.

Do you think anything God created is truly of any significance in relation to God?
To God, there is no difference between the physical and the metaphysical.
The difference is only to mortal man to deal with.

I believe you are missing the point. Genesis is not a fairy tale it is ancient man’s allegorical accounts of the creation of the material world by the G-d of Abraham and the recognition that man is a product of that creation.

You take it as allegory.
I take it as a moral compass that requires intense study.

 

[ding]

I don’t believe God can be defined period. We do the best we can with the words and concepts that we know.

There are only two possible boundary conditions either the material world was created by spirit or the material world created spirit. The former view is the one held by deists and theists. The latter view is the one held by atheists.

The account of Genesis tells us the material world was created by spirit and that man is a product of the material world.

Where does Genesis state that the material world was created y spirit?

Are you telling me that you don't believe the essence of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 isn't about G-d creating the material world and man being a product of the material world?

So when I say spirit I am using that word to distinguish between a material world that was created from nothing versus a material world that was created from no thing.

Think of spiritual or spirit as "no thing" and material as "thing."

And when you think of a "no thing" think of something that you can't understand but you know it is infinitely intelligent and sentient. I choose spirit because the debate is over materialism and spiritualism. That is the heart of the question.

Do you think anything God created is truly of any significance in relation to God?
To God, there is no difference between the physical and the metaphysical.
The difference is only to mortal man to deal with.

I believe you are missing the point. Genesis is not a fairy tale it is ancient man’s allegorical accounts of the creation of the material world by the G-d of Abraham and the recognition that man is a product of that creation.

You take it as allegory.
I take it as a moral compass that requires intense study.

No. It is an allegorical account of what is actually true. Space and time were created from nothing and man is a product of that creation. Ancient man knew the truth 6000 years before science.

I'm not the only one who believes this.

Similarly, Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”​

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia

 

[ding]

I don’t believe God can be defined period. We do the best we can with the words and concepts that we know.

There are only two possible boundary conditions either the material world was created by spirit or the material world created spirit. The former view is the one held by deists and theists. The latter view is the one held by atheists.

The account of Genesis tells us the material world was created by spirit and that man is a product of the material world.

Where does Genesis state that the material world was created y spirit?

Are you telling me that you don't believe the essence of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 isn't about G-d creating the material world and man being a product of the material world?

So when I say spirit I am using that word to distinguish between a material world that was created from nothing versus a material world that was created from no thing.

Think of spiritual or spirit as "no thing" and material as "thing."

And when you think of a "no thing" think of something that you can't understand but you know it is infinitely intelligent and sentient. I choose spirit because the debate is over materialism and spiritualism. That is the heart of the question.

Do you think anything God created is truly of any significance in relation to God?
To God, there is no difference between the physical and the metaphysical.
The difference is only to mortal man to deal with.

I believe you are missing the point. Genesis is not a fairy tale it is ancient man’s allegorical accounts of the creation of the material world by the G-d of Abraham and the recognition that man is a product of that creation.

You take it as allegory.
I take it as a moral compass that requires intense study.

And what does your intense study tell you about the Tower of Babel? Or the fall of man?

 

[Indeependent]

Where does Genesis state that the material world was created y spirit?

Are you telling me that you don't believe the essence of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 isn't about G-d creating the material world and man being a product of the material world?

So when I say spirit I am using that word to distinguish between a material world that was created from nothing versus a material world that was created from no thing.

Think of spiritual or spirit as "no thing" and material as "thing."

And when you think of a "no thing" think of something that you can't understand but you know it is infinitely intelligent and sentient. I choose spirit because the debate is over materialism and spiritualism. That is the heart of the question.

Do you think anything God created is truly of any significance in relation to God?
To God, there is no difference between the physical and the metaphysical.
The difference is only to mortal man to deal with.

I believe you are missing the point. Genesis is not a fairy tale it is ancient man’s allegorical accounts of the creation of the material world by the G-d of Abraham and the recognition that man is a product of that creation.

You take it as allegory.
I take it as a moral compass that requires intense study.

No. It is an allegorical account of what is actually true. Space and time were created from nothing and man is a product of that creation. Ancient man knew the truth 6000 years before science.

And how do the verses not state these series of events.
God relates, step by step, the construction of the universe and Earth in particular to impress upon mankind how much He loves us.
Where do you get lost in this?

 

[ding]

Are you telling me that you don't believe the essence of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 isn't about G-d creating the material world and man being a product of the material world?

So when I say spirit I am using that word to distinguish between a material world that was created from nothing versus a material world that was created from no thing.

Think of spiritual or spirit as "no thing" and material as "thing."

And when you think of a "no thing" think of something that you can't understand but you know it is infinitely intelligent and sentient. I choose spirit because the debate is over materialism and spiritualism. That is the heart of the question.

Do you think anything God created is truly of any significance in relation to God?
To God, there is no difference between the physical and the metaphysical.
The difference is only to mortal man to deal with.

I believe you are missing the point. Genesis is not a fairy tale it is ancient man’s allegorical accounts of the creation of the material world by the G-d of Abraham and the recognition that man is a product of that creation.

You take it as allegory.
I take it as a moral compass that requires intense study.

No. It is an allegorical account of what is actually true. Space and time were created from nothing and man is a product of that creation. Ancient man knew the truth 6000 years before science.

And how do the verses not state these series of events.
God relates, step by step, the construction of the universe and Earth in particular to impress upon mankind how much He loves us.
Where do you get lost in this?

I'm not the only one who believes this.

Similarly, Bar Ilan University’s Professor Nathan Aviezer, author of the book In the Beginning, told The Times of Israel, this discovery “isn’t going to make anyone who wasn’t a believer in God into one, or vice versa, but one thing the announcement does do is make it clear that the universe had a definite starting point — a creation — as described in the Book of Genesis,” said Aviezer. “To deny this now is to deny scientific fact.”

“Without addressing who or what caused it, the mechanics of the creation process in the Big Bang match the Genesis story perfectly. If I had to make up a theory to match the first passages in Genesis, the Big Bang theory would be it,” said Aviezer.

“It’s an example of Divine irony that it took atheistic scientists like [Nobel laureate Paul] Dirac and all the others to point out the truth of the Torah. At this point I think we can say that creation is a scientific fact.”​

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

Nathan Aviezer - Wikipedia