Solved

Logic

Posted on 2004-03-23
22
36 Views
Last Modified: 2006-11-17
The Religious & Scientific community in general believe logic is a tool of science, and science is a tool to explain the meaning of life (to look for the answers) for the non religious, non creationists, non believers.

I think logic is as natural a process as sex is.  My 4 year old daughter got her hands on the Chinese numeric system.  “1” is one horizontal stroke, so she drew that, “2” is two strokes, “3” is three strokes.  How do you think she wrote 4?  She was wrong, but she took a logical process.  Where did she learn this??

I use logic to explain most events I experience in life.  It hasn’t let me down yet.  I think logic is natural, even creationists use it.  Otherwise how would you ever put your jumper on?  Your head won’t fit through the sleeve, its logical!

What do you think?
0
Comment
Question by:Wrath_Of_Khan
  • 6
  • 4
  • 2
  • +6
22 Comments
 
LVL 8

Accepted Solution

by:
ddrdan earned 20 total points
ID: 10656194
Logically speaking, I would logistically agree that the specific logistics of evaluating the logics of logic would be the logical course for the answer. Just kidding, I love the word logic!

Theology has its place, just not when I'm doing algebraic equations. I am a science-based person. It's hard to refuse the evident facts presented to us in our everyday lives. But, if others choose to ignore those facts and find ways to dispute them, well, then let them. My observation through 50 years of life is that we are what our environment makes us.

Basically we are "monkey see monkey do" learners. Lock someone in a closet for 20 years they will come out as a loner enveloped into themselves. Throw that same person into a social bazaar of money and power for 20 years and they become President Bush. LOL, just stressing a point.

The day we wake up and allow each to have their own beliefs and stop trying to impliment laws that force conformity, we will have arrived.
0
 
LVL 6

Assisted Solution

by:HippyWarlock
HippyWarlock earned 20 total points
ID: 10656252
Logic is like an attempt to regiment intelligent thought into neat lines that the train of thought can follow without getting ost... like I just have.

Logic is the height of intelligent thought processes,
Intelligent thought is the product of the human brain,
The brain can be reduced to chemistry.
Chemistry can be explained by Physics,
Physics can be reduced to mathematics,
Mathematics can be explained by logic,
Logic is how Computers work

Will I dream phzzzztt!

Peace
0
 
LVL 1

Assisted Solution

by:lndsydms
lndsydms earned 20 total points
ID: 10672389
Hey Guys :-)


***Definition of Theology (Dictionary.com)

The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.


***Definition of Logic (Dictionary.com)

A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
Computer Science.
The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
Computer circuitry.
Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

If theology is the search for truth of origin/truth of God, then it would seem to me that theology and logic go hand and hand.

When truth is no longer observable it becomes opinion and can stray from logic.

Both evolution and creationism contain theory based on fact and opinion so both are  theological in part and science in part, but both are logical within the thought process of the evolutionist and the creationist.  This is true of many studies we conduct throughout life.  Even the code style for a program can be based on both to reach an optimum result.

Which contains more fact or logic?  That is the question in the battle between, In the beginning, God or In the beginning, Dirt.  And much of the answer can only be found within.  A very worthwhile study, considering that many consider the soul to be existant and eternal.  I's rather not take my chances, given the degree of logic, fact and history found within the scope of the God of the Bible.

I am personally partial to the logic I find at http://drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq

:-) lindsay
 
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:HippyWarlock
ID: 10673201
To define the logic it is next necessary to determine the axioms of the logic. The axioms are those sentences which are to be considered true without proof.

A bit of philosophy might help us understand logic. Or it might not.
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:prickles
prickles earned 20 total points
ID: 10682092
There are sections of the Bible that explain science better than it was understood by the people of that time. Their are many parts of science and the exploration of medicine, universe, etc, that seem to underlie a logical pattern in the creation of the earth and to me anyway can't be explained any other way but that God created the earth.

From the posts I have seen on EE, it seems primarily to come down to those who feel religion/creationism/The Bible can not be accurate is based on not believing in certain miracles or events like the flood and Noah's ark, or that the earth could be created within a literal seven days as it seems to allude to in Genesis 1, etc.

These seem to me to be more a particular religions belief on how literal any of these passages are or if God would be interested in performing a miracle or not than something that would unilaterally discredit God or all religion as a whole. If you don't believe a passage is literal, that doesn't mean some religion won't agree with you and that your only option is non-belief.

There is no reason you shouldn't be able to prove anything, including religion, from a logic standpoint, although some issues might not be a concrete a "logical bullet list" as others. If I was to list all the reasons I love someone, its not necessarily a universal scientific formula and I don't think you are going to get an exact scientific formula for religion either, because other factors are involved, including that not all religions believe the same thing on the points that are frequently used as points to disprove religion.

Of side note Wrath_Of_Khan - I did some computer programming for a gifted children testing institute and remember reading in their literature that children under five who show interest in languages with alpha/numeric characters different from their own language and recognize it is a language (not just funny drawings essentially) demonstrate much higher (like really higher) visual cortex functioning as adults - photographic memory sort of stuff.
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:johnlcox
johnlcox earned 20 total points
ID: 10707684
I think that everyone has logic at least at a basic level.  However, logic at a more complex and useful level is a learned thing.  I took a logic/rational thinking class last semester and about 1/3 of the class dropped out.  Most of the people that dropped out tried a lot harder than I did in the class but still couldn't understand any of the logic processes we were learning about.  It all seemed to come naturally to me, which leads me to believe that a certain part of the brain is responsible for the logic process.  It must be developed in order to be able to use logic as a good means of problem solving.  Since everyone at least has this part of the brain they have logic at a low level, but no more than a low level unless they develop it.
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:HippyWarlock
ID: 10715659
WHOA!

Logic is not up for debate,  Logic is well defined. You can't assume anything about it, that's the whole point of it.

How can there be certain sections of the Bible that define science better than it was understood at the time? It was written by people of that time.

You cannot 'have' a low level of logic. You can think logically or not, as soon as you think illogically, call it irrational or emotional or whatever you want, but once you step outside the logical process it stops being logical.

Logic (Hyperdict)
The science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and
   formal thought, or of the laws according to which the
   processes of pure thinking should be conducted
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:lndsydms
ID: 10716008
What happens if something factual counteracts logic?

It is not logical for the Bible to define science better than it was understood by the men who wrote it, but it is factually and scientifically proven to be true in many instances.

I recommend the book "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry Morris.

:-) lndsy
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:johnlcox
ID: 10716247
What I mean by a different levels of logic abilities is that if there is a very complex problem, people that havn't learned how to use logic to it's full extent get lost in the process.  They are able to do small steps in a logical manner but when they have to combine 10 or 20 logical steps into one logical process they get confused and can't come up with an answer.  The only way they are able to make it through the entire process of combining the steps is through practice and training.

I also wouldn't call thinking illogically emotional.  Without some level of emotion we wouldn't be able to function logically at all.  There would be an infinite amount of possible choices in any given problem.  Emotion is what provides us with a narrower spectrum of choices when solving a problem.  However, relying too much upon emotions can also affect our decisions in a negative way.  Antonio Damasio a neurologist at the University of Iowa discusses the purpose of emotions in our reasoning skills in his book titled "Descartes' Error".  It is an interesting read and provides a lot of insight into the way our mind works.
0
Better Security Awareness With Threat Intelligence

See how one of the leading financial services organizations uses Recorded Future as part of a holistic threat intelligence program to promote security awareness and proactively and efficiently identify threats.

 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:HippyWarlock
ID: 10718124
Indysydms:
>but it is factually and scientifically proven to be true in many instances

   Name one?

Johnlcox:
>I also wouldn't call thinking illogically emotional

   I never.

No problem has an infinite amount of choices (solutions) .... then again there is the Windows hotfix site....

Emotion is what our primitive mind uses to solve a problem, it's often a solution, but not by any means correct.

I also never suggested we break down human thought processes into a form of boolean logic.




0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:lndsydms
ID: 10723647
Biblical Oceanography


Throughout history it has been commonly believed that the ocean floors are basically smooth, like large hollowed-out bowls, but modern oceanographers know better. There are actually thousands of underwater mountains, called sea mounts, some even as high as 10,000 feet. How do you suppose the writer of the Book of Jonah had access to this information in 860 B.C.? Jonah 2:3-6 says, "For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me. Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple. The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God."

Apart from the tides, most have historically thought the oceans were like large still lakes without current. That is, until the 1800's when Matthew Fontaine Maury discovered RIVERS in the oceans. The Cromwell Current runs over thirteen thousand miles through the Pacific, and the Florida Current has over four thousand times the flow of the Mississippi. These "ocean rivers" (actually called "planktons") were finally discovered because Dr. Maury insisted on believing Psalm 8:8 literally: "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas."

Today it is estimated that there are some thirty million trillion tons of water trapped beneath the earth's surface, and much of this water makes it's way up to the ocean floors in the form of sea springs. Although this is a fairly modern discovery, the Bible informed us of this thousands of years ago:

"Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?" (Job 38:16)

"When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:" (Prov. 8:28)

It is also known today that our ocean floors often contain giant canyons known as submarine canyons. Of course, this is nothing new. David had this knowledge in 1000 B.C.: "And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils."



The Earth Not Flat


Only five hundred years ago many were convinced that Columbus would fall off the edge of the earth, because our planet was believed to be flat.

This suggestion must have sounded rather foolish to the Bible believers of that day, for God had already told them that the earth was a CIRCLE in Isaiah 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."


Entropy A Reality


It wasn't until the mid 1800's that Rudolf Clausius proved that the universe is not eternal, but that it is actually DEGENERATING. Today it is commonly accepted by scientists that entropy (unavailable energy) is continually increasing. That is, the universe is falling apart.

Too bad they didn't read their Bibles, because God's word has been declaring this truth for thousands of years:

"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end." (Psa. 102:25-27. Also see Mat. 24:35 and Rom. 8:21-22.)


Eighth Day Circumcision


Doctors today know very well that it is best to perform circumcision on the eighth day of a child's life. On the eighth day there is more Vitamin K and prothrombin present in the blood, which means less pain, less bleeding, and a better healing process. I wonder if they teach Genesis 17:10-12 in medical school?


Earth Suspended In Space


Many of the ancients believed that out planet was actually resting upon the backs of certain large animals, and some even believed that some large person, such as Atlas, was holding up planet earth. Then there were some who believed that planet earth was actually hanging from the sky by a large chain or rope.

Did the Bible-believers of yesterday believe such foolishness? Of course not, because Job 26:7 had already told them what to believe: "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."


Television In The Bible?


"And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth." (Rev. 11:9-10)

Throughout history many infidels have mocked and highly criticized this portion of scripture. The idea has been that it is impossible for "people and kindreds and tongues and nations" to view two dead bodies in Palestine in only three and one half days. There was just no way that the whole world could see one incident in one nation.

Now there IS a way, as God knew there would be when He inspired Revelation 1900 years ago. With the advancement of television, satalites, and network news coverage, the events of Revelation 11:9-10 will be fulfilled with ease.


Other Items Of Interest


In 1800 B.C. we were told that light travels (Job 38:19), the stars produce sound waves (Job 38:7), some stars are "bound" in clusters (Job 38:31), the moon has no light of it's own (Job 25:5), and electricity can be used for communication (Job 38:35).

As early as 1500 B.C. it was recorded that the sun is not the only source of light (Gen. 1:3, 14-16; Psa. 74:16), the earth was originally one large land mass (Gen. 1:9; 10:25; Deut. 32:8), and the stars cannot be counted by man (Gen. 15:5; 22:17; Jer. 33:22).


lndsy
0
 
LVL 1

Assisted Solution

by:ericmhhui
ericmhhui earned 20 total points
ID: 10777774
yep, everything is logical
but something that u can't understand/explain doesn't mean that it is not logical
if you only define something as "logical" when you understand the reasoning behind it, then this world should not be "logical" to you
Bible does not contradict with logic, it's just that our minds aren't built smart enough to understand it.  
0
 
LVL 9

Assisted Solution

by:j3one
j3one earned 20 total points
ID: 10953750
Logic is just a tool. Every bit of logic we have is based on an assumption. Logic is always right, but sometimes assumptions are wrong. Everyone has the same logic and will come to the same conclusions, if they have the same assumptions. If we think science has reached the place where it knows every plane of  existance, we are asking for trouble. Creationist arguments are groundless unless the Holy Bible is 100% accurate and true as the "inspired Word of God". Creationism Only makes sense through the eyes of faith, and while I applaud there attempt to offer an alternative to evalution (wich requires just as much faith), but unless ones view changes to a supernatural world view, It is not acceptable to us. Logic is a great tool as is phillosophy, but niether can answer are questions about life to the furthest most extent, because are assumtions are constantly being proven wrong, or the simple fact that we will never have the data to imput into logic that will provide the ultimate answers of life.

-> some clarification... A supernatural world view starts with the understanding that a person accepts the supernatural by faith.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:ericmhhui
ID: 10955983
j3one,

Yes, logic is just a tool.  I am just curious which part of the Holy Bible has been proven false?  Trying to provide ultimate answers of life without realizing one's own limitation is like asking a kindergarten kid to understand a lecture targeted for a university student.  
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:lndsydms
ID: 10960757
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe.  Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

If you like, please consider the following questions to yourself:

1.        Where did the space for the universe come from?

2.        Where did matter come from?

3.        Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4.        How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5.        Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6.        When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

7.        When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8.        With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9.        Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10.     How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11.     Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12.     Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13.     When, where, why, and how did:

o                                Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

o                                Single-celled animals evolve?

o                                Fish change to amphibians?

o                                Amphibians change to reptiles?

o                                Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

 

How did the intermediate forms live?

14.     When, where, why, how, and from what did:

o                                   Whales evolve?

o                                   Sea horses evolve?

o                                   bats evolve?

o                                   Eyes evolve?

o                                   Ears evolve?

o                                   Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15.     Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

o                                The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

o                                The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

o                                The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

o                                DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

o                                The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

o                                The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

o                                The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

o                                The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

o                                The immune system or the need for it?

16.     There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

17.     How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

18.     When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

19.     *How did photosynthesis evolve?

20.     *How did thought evolve?

21.     *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

22.     *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

23.     What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

24.     *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

25.     *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

26.     *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

 

After you have answered the preceding questions, please consider carefully your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1.        Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

2.        Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

3.        Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

4.        Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact as if there was empirical evidence for the theory?

5.        What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

6.        Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?

o                                It is all they have been taught.

o                                They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).

o                                They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.

o                                They are too proud to admit they are wrong.

o                                Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

7.        Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

8.        Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

9.        What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not.  Both possibilities are frightening."

10.     Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?  If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?  It is just a religious worldview.

** http://drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=QuestionsforEvolutionists.jsp

lndsy :-)

0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:lndsydms
ID: 10961279

I hope that you all can find the above interesting from a logical point of view.  It seems to me that most people who are educated by public school and many colleges are taught evolution as fact, as I was.  Although I understand much of the fundamentals and theory of evolution, I have chosen creation theory as being much more logical.  It was the study of the logic of creation theory that brought me to God and not a belief in God that brought me to creation theory.  However, it seems that many evolutionists have always studied evolution and really do not understand how much scientific evidence, real observations support creation theory.  They never give it a chance and miss out on a whole other perspective that would either change their mind about evolution theory or re-inforce what they already know of evolution.  (it's a win/win situation)  Has the evolutionist really looked into the scientific studies of creation?  Is the evolutionist apprehensive to even look into it because the God of the Bible may exist and it might actually be more logical than evolution?  

"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."?*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].

 
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:lndsydms
ID: 10961542
:-)  Sorry to butt in here yet once again.  I just wanted to point out in defense to J3one's comment above that the Bible does not prove creation theory, but rather the observable scientific evidence supports the claims and documentation of the Bible.  Not to argue, but rather just to point out the common misunderstanding of creation study.  One does not have to believe in the Bible or God at all to find creation evidence overwhelmingly logical (ie. that there was a worldwide flood, that the earth is approx. 6,000 years old, that man and dinosaurs existed on the earth at the same time, etc.).  The Bible supports the observable as a historical documentation of what is found in science or evidence.  I can give resourses for study or examples if anyone is interested.
0
 

Assisted Solution

by:Mar_vel
Mar_vel earned 20 total points
ID: 11091582
if you are thinking logical about this thought on logics, I am rite in asking that the question was, that wether logical was a natural devlopment or was learnt to adapt to surroundings. But really if you think logical about this, then you would realise that it is natural as is everything. Everything has to come from somewhere and that is always natural.
0
 
LVL 3

Assisted Solution

by:Sajjaninj
Sajjaninj earned 20 total points
ID: 11745509
reality(truth) is a seameless web.And we are only a part of it. How can the part know the whole? logic is the tool we have developed to understand and reason the part of truth we know of.At the horizon of this chunk of truth integrity of logic fails  and so we resort of illogical extension and play of words.. I think the key is to accept our place in the universe ( or multiverse or.. )and be humble and continue our quest for truth.As for reality,we are just too small to grasp it all!!!Besides without the wonder and mystery of life, whatz living?



0

Featured Post

Threat Intelligence Starter Resources

Integrating threat intelligence can be challenging, and not all companies are ready. These resources can help you build awareness and prepare for defense.

Join & Write a Comment

Experts-Exchange is designed for questions and answers with the common scenario being that nearly all responses are directed to the Asker.   But in some EE zones, it is common to have a number of different people discussing back and forth.  In such …
The Qur’an Revelation There has been a lot of public focus and debate on Islam in various media in recent years. This article aims to clarify some elements towards the understanding of the primary source of Islamic belief, the Qur’an. Defini…
Sending a Secure fax is easy with eFax Corporate (http://www.enterprise.efax.com). First, Just open a new email message.  In the To field, type your recipient's fax number @efaxsend.com. You can even send a secure international fax — just include t…
This demo shows you how to set up the containerized NetScaler CPX with NetScaler Management and Analytics System in a non-routable Mesos/Marathon environment for use with Micro-Services applications.

707 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

12 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now