I want to translate some parts of one famous Bengali song written by the Indian writer cum philosopher, Rabindranath Tagore. "He stuns us and hides behind your sight. You can not tie Him up with all your might. Out of your reach, He slips. Out of this effort, a puzzle, one reaps." Though, it is a very bad translation, I have tried to convey the message of Tagore to all. All our sensory perceptions can only show the essence of God indirectly. If we take for granted the equivalence of sensory perceptions and the real world the previous sentence applies to the real world too. This is not going to change, I think, in spite of all scientific progress.

Truth is rarely convenient for us; a better question is how long we will put up with the inconvenience of God.

@Eisa, true.@Jeff, exactly. We cannot push God out of our reality without doing some damage to our own existence. if God were to be out of our reality, we simply cease to exist, ie no meaning to our lives and what we may be living for. as for truth, yes the world does not want to hear the truth, it's a bitter pill often hard to swallow. but in the end it heals cos of its therapeutic nature. truth is like a double-edged sword.

I want to translate some parts of one famous Bengali song written by the Indian writer cum philosopher, Rabindranath Tagore. "He stuns us and hides behind your sight. You can not tie Him up with all your might. Out of your reach, He slips. Out of this effort, a puzzle, one reaps." Though, it is a very bad translation, I have tried to convey the message of Tagore to all. All our sensory perceptions can only show the essence of God indirectly. If we take for granted the equivalence of sensory perceptions and the real world the previous sentence applies to the real world too. This is not going to change, I think, in spite of all scientific progress.

God is Our Inner Self. Our reality is created from Inner world.What we see through our perception is part of Unfoldment of our Inner level. Continuity of present moment is unfolment of our Soul. So no reality without God.God is the one who creates and directs the reality. We can create our better world by aligning ourselves with God.

I hope that you don't misunderstand me: I do not mean to imply that we have any power whatsoever over God and/or God's existence or nature. Rather, I wanted to point out that God's existence, like the truth, is often very inconvenient for us, as it keeps us from justifying our own actions and lives and holds us to a higher account. My question was perhaps more pastoral than scientific, as questions of God's "convenience" are ultimately answered by us in our personal and corporate response to God.

Nautre follows God (as we follow some topic in Research Gate). But God also runs to catch hold of some persons! He follows His devotees. God is only got by devotion. This devotion is a tool which is hard to acquire and is different from the scientific research tools. If we can use devotion as a tool to observe the reality, we will be able to conveniently observe the total reality and the total reality (God) will conveniently be observed by us. Convenience of two sides will merge then.

Very interesting! I'm not sure that I agree though; in my experience, devotion takes incredible discipline, and is far from convenient. God says "you will find me when you seek me with all of your heart," but sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between finding God and inventing experience.

When you follow your Inner Self, you automatically connected with the All That Is(GOD).So God himself expressing through ourselves when we follow our Inner Self which connected with All That Is .When we follow the inner self ,our decisions becomes the decision of all individual simultaneously.

I don't know about you, but my inner self tends to want to watch porn and eat pizza. If God is my inner self, we're all in a lot of trouble. It is my outer self, my public face, that follows godly ideals; left on my own, I degenerate. We need to look OUTside ourselves for God, rather than inside, with the hope that our inside will be transformed.

What Gopalan means by 'your inner self' is your true self. What JW and EJ mean is the apparent self. As for example, when one says that it is better to die because the life is very bad, but, we see that the person is doing everything to maintain his or her body we can say that the person is ignorant about his/ her true self. The person mentioned here is only busy with a false, imposed concept of his/ her inner self. The person is not true to himself/ herself. If somebody fails to know his/ her own truth, he/ she can not catch hold of the total truth. So, knowing yourself properly essential to grasp the whole truth.

EJ, You commented that our creator created us and our universe from nothing. I like your comment. If this is true then God is the causal agent as well as the material agent of this universe because, there is nothing except God here. When one potter, as for example, creates a pot he is the causal agent of the pot but, clay is the material agent of the pot. But, if there is not a single thing except God, then He must be both the causal as well as the material agent of this universe. Hence, God must be present in ourselves also. What bars us from seeing Him within ourselves is sin according to some Abrahamic religions and ignorance according to some Indian spiritual traditions. So, knowing youself truely is equivalent to coming out of your sin by continuous prayer. Hence, what you say and what I say are the same things. They are only stated in different manners.

EJ, I also like your devotion to God.

JW, devotion is a subjective experience and it can not be coveyed to others in an objective manner. So, I am a bit mistaken when I compare it with scientific researchers' tools.

Thanks for your explanations, Dr. M, it helps us to stop talking past each other and start talking to/with each other instead.

Christian theology asserts that our true self is at once both flawed and redeemed - that our basic desires are selfish, but that we are being transformed into the likeness of Christ, the true human. Our tendency is to speak of our "inner self" in western psychological terms, referring to the "ego", which we recognize as being self-centered. Thus, for a Western Christian, the "inner self" is identified with our selfish, fallen nature, which must be submitted to Christ for transformation. Further, Western culture is full of references to "being true to yourself" or "following your heart" which, while I am sure do not refer to the same thing as Raja is, most certainly refer to our own selfish desires and ambitions - so I hope you can see why I would react against identifying our "true selves" with God, as it would seem to imply (in my culture) that God is the base, selfish, hedonistic nature of fallen humanity!

What's funny is that this sophisticated group never asks what the word "God" means. For some God means an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent benevolent, entity which works miracles in response to porayer. Others mean very different things by the wame word. Lets define out terms.

S̶̲̥̅Ơ̴̴̴͡​ much hv bn said on God, Nature and our Inner Self or Man.God is beyond defintion.He is Spirit and those who seek him must acknowledge Him in His works(i.e. Nature).Science can only unravel as much as its intelligence can tarry. Same with d Inner Man or Self.We must rest our questing spirits or intelligence at unravelling d ultimate meaning åΩ̴̴̩̩̩̥̩ð purpose of all that is.This 'rest' i call humility or submission τ̲̅ȍ d truth åΩ̴̴̩̩̩̥̩ð meaning åΩ̴̴̩̩̩̥̩ð purpose τ̲̅ȍ all things that is AND rather yield our daily musings τ̲̅ȍ d Ultimate intelligence Who alone can enlighten our minute minds åΩ̴̴̩̩̩̥̩ð enable us grasp d meaning τ̲̅ȍ that which we seek explanation.Kudos guys, keep it up.

Jesus bore the brunt of sin of others but, forgave them. This seems to be impossible if we view it from our worldly standpoints. I personally bow to Jesus in the same manner as I bow to God.

EJ, every religion has some different approach. They approach the same One but, in different manner. They all worship " God Only One God". When I bow before a body, I actually bow before the manifestation of "God Only One God" inside the body. Allah manifests in us and also in the nature.

@Anirban You are speaking about Inner Self. Inner Self is God Obviously but God himself express as persons(Father,Son, Holy Spirit). God is both Universal and Personal. Our Inner Self is Universal aspect of God. Trinity is the Personal aspect of God. Universal aspect of God act according to the Law (which is Unconditional Love and nonjudgmental). Personal aspect of God is Unconditional Love and Judgmental.

Many a type of sweet foods are made of milk and sugar. Every sweet food has different set of admirers. But, the maker of the sweets knows that every set is getting the same thing in different names. Even some of the above mentioned sets recognize the underlying oneness.

Yes absolutely ! without God we are not in existence

To think of God not within our existential discourse is like living in a concrete bunker without windows; yet our self-made windows in that bunker were products of a materials that were made ex-nihilo.

Where is this god you people speak of?

Thales, I would submit that the God of which so many speak dwells in the same realm as consciousness, a realm that cannot currently be accessed by science, or even be proven to exist. However, this realm is capable of being accessed by individuals who may report on what they find there. Part of the problem with the reporting is cultural, things are reported according to the culture of the person experiencing, part of the problem is describing something that has no clear corelates in the physical realm and part is merely that different individuals access different portions of the realm.

William, thanks for your elucidation. If what you submit has substance, then this "God[,] of which so many speak[, who] dwells in the same realm as consciousness," whereat we come to have a multicultural, non-correlated, fragmentary, nondescript and nebulous deity, then, perhaps this deity could be considered as human consciousness apotheosed / anthropomorphized?

AM: "They all worship 'God Only One God.'"

That is, of course, not true. Many religions worship a pantheon of gods. Consider, for example, many gods of ancient Rome.

Thales, if we approach the question from a history of religions viewpoint, then we seem to end up with two potential Gods. of opposing character. It is possible that either could be human consciousness anthropomorphized, but possible does not mean necessarily. This is a huge fallacy we must remember. It is closely related to corelated and causality. Just because when starlings gather in huge flocks and fly south right before the leave begin to fall does not mean that starlings gathering in flocks and flying south has any direct bearing on leaves falling. Different cultures describe many things differently. This does not mean that the different things are not real, just that they are described in different fashion., When they all agree on certain points, the question becomes, what underlies the agreement, and can we discount it as not being an ultimate reality?

Bill O., the pantheons of gods were ultimately merely aspects of one supreme god. Now there were some suppositions about this one god that differed from the suppositions about the monotheistic god, but still both versions of god also shared many aspects.

William: how does one make a 'huge' fallacy? a fallacy is a fallacy, right.

i submitted that "perhaps this deity could be considered..." i left it open. this is because i only wanted to demonstrate that one could draw another conclusion to your submission on consciousness.

indeed, what is it that underlies the agreement on certain points apparently common to homo sapiens?

"the pantheon of gods were ultimately merely aspects of of one supreme God": please tell us how do you know this?

cheers

EAJ: firstly, my aim is not to be proven right or wrong; am interested in getting at the truth--if there is such a thing as the truth. we're engaging each other in a discussion on the beliefs that we hold. as is obvious, i am not convinced that gods are. and to be clear, i do not know if gods are or are not. in fact, i have no concept of what a god is.

"God, the Eternal, Absolute ..."?

what does it mean to be eternal, to be absolute?

"Who knows (all things) ..."?

what does it mean to know all things?

"the Holy One. the Source of Peace (and Perfection) ..."?

what does it mean to be the source of perfection?

cheers

WM: "the pantheons of gods were ultimately merely aspects of one supreme god. Now there were some suppositions about this one god that differed from the suppositions about the monotheistic god, but still both versions of god also shared many aspects."

(1) Properly understood, the divine ousia (being or essence) is absolutely one. Thus it has no 'aspects.'

(2) Many, perhaps most, pagan religions describe their gods in ways incompatible with monotheism. Thus we know that Zeus led his siblings in a revolt against his father, Cronus, overthrowing the whole race of the Titans. Cronus had, himself, overthrown his own father, Uranus. War among the gods simply can not be reconciled with monotheism.

PJP: "Belief in one God, Allah in Arabic, constitutes the very foundation of Islam. PJP and also Christianity and Judaism as well."

Wrong. Judaism worships the Lord, YHWH, not Allah. The name 'Allah' was first given to the Arabian Moon god, Hubal. The name Allah simply means 'the god.' His daughter was Allāt, 'the goddess.' She is one of three goddesses mentioned by Muhammad in the Satanic Verses, along with Al-‘Uzzá and Manāt.

"Everyone worships the same entity ..."

Everyone?

I see no entity to worship.

ES: "Are you still looking for "God One Superme" that is enough ...End."

Of course, for the Father, His Son and their Holy Spirit are one god without difference or separation.

Thaleus, you asked how one can know that the pantheon of gods in some religions are actually just aspects of one god, The answer is quite simple, you merely read what the religion says about the pantheon of their gods.

I would further submit that should one logically follow all that is known from the scientific method, one must come to the conclusion that there is a supreme entity. Now the exact nature of this supreme entity cannot be known via this method, but its existence is a given. It is not avoided by arguing that its nature is not what it is commonly presented as being because we simply cannot know from science what its nature is or is not.

ES: "No, for "God Only One God" who create Jesus (pbuh), who create Holy Spirit..."

Think logically, Eisa. Certainly, god did not create god. Thus the Father, His Son and their Holy Spirit are one god, without difference or separation.

ES: "I would like to say the truth we and Jews have before you rewrote Jews Scriptures..."

There is no evidence of this imagined rewriting. We know that the Scriptures that existed at the time of Christ, who testified to them, are the same Scriptures we have today. That is what is important.

ES: "Muslims know Yahweh & Jesus Well… .None of them is God or god."

Moses was told that god's name for all generations is YHWH. We know that Jesus said that he is god. You may accept that truth or not, it is up to you.

WM: "you merely read what the religion says about the pantheon of their gods."

There are thousands of religions, almost all of which are polytheistic. In many of them, there is a dichotomy between the good gods and evil gods. In such religions, men typically worship the evil gods because they are seen to be more powerful and important than the good gods. Such beliefs can not meaningfully be said to be monotheistic in any sense.

BO,

"Certainly, god did not create god."

perhaps you can share with us how you know this to be a certainty.

WM,

reading what the various religions say about their gods:

in the Vedantic traditions, Jñāna, a characteristic of God, refers to omniscience (i stand to be corrected here)

in general, the Abrahamic faiths posit that God is omniscient.

so, what does this omniscience mean? what does it mean to know all?

"should one logically follow all that is known from the scientific method, one must come to the conclusion that there is a supreme entity."

please explain how the knowledge garnered from the scientific method must lead one to conclude that there is a supreme entity?

and, what is this supreme entity you speak of?

some of us here continue to make assertions, posit arguments, proffer claims; this is fine. but please, show us how your assertions, arguments, and claims have substance to them.

cheers

ES: "it is not true that the Prophets and Messengers disguised Their God Only God, told you that they are gods !!!!"

Who said anything about a disguise? I didn't. Read the Bible and the scales over your eyes will be removed!!

TM: "perhaps you can share with us how you know this to be a certainty."

Because it would be meaningless.

Ignorance of the Bible is no excuse for false statements about it.

BO: "Because it would be meaningless."

Thank you.

AM: "All our sensory perceptions can only show the essence of God indirectly."

Orthodox Christianity tells us that the divine ousia (being or essence) is absolutely unknowable.

In my humble opinion, there are only three ways in which we can know god...

(1) We can know what god is not. Thus, god is not ignorant; god is not a creature, etc.

(2) We can know that god created the world about us.

(3) We can know Jesus, the Son of Man, hypostatically united with the Son of God... two natures in one hypostasis. In this way we know that god was born of the Virgin; that god died on the Cross and rose on the third day; etc.

Yet none of these ways enable us to know the divine ousia.

TM, You asked about whay I assert that the following the scientific method implies a supreme being. First please note that I am not ascribing characteristics to this supreme being beyound what I specify. Now when we follow the scientific method, we are acting on faith that history is indicative of the future. Yet what besides some type of supreme entity can provide that assurance? We cannot use probability, because we are within the probability curve, not outside it, thus we cannot know if we are in the highly probable middle portion or somewhere towards a highly improbable end.

Bill O, you are quite right about most religions bein polytheistic in nature, yet when one studies their creation narratives, all the multitude of gods arise in some fashion from a single god. My grandfather was one of 12 children, but all had the same parents. Since there were 12 of them, should we posit 12 separate families, or just one large sometimes extended one?

WM:

Assertion/claim/argument: "Now when we follow the scientific method, we are acting on faith that history is indicative of the future."

perhaps, perhaps not.

The Scientific Method (according to Merriam-Webster Online) --> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%20method

"principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

Faith (M-W Online) --> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith?show=0&t=1325118676

"2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust"

I have doubts (a large number actually) that there is faith in science; only Empirical Falsification and all that good stuff.

cheers

I can not help but to believe that science can only describe the RESULTS of Gods action and HOW those results were achieved. Science still cannot tell us what action formed our Universe, all we know is that we are moving away from some central point. Science still cannot tell us how Life was formed on our planet, only that at some point it was. To remove God from the equation of Natural Science has not been successful simply because, in the final analysis, He is there, He has always been there and He will be there when He decides to change it all. Yes, this is a faith based belief, but so is the Big Bang, or the life from soup, or any of the other conjectures being put forth.

DC >> Yes, this is a faith based belief, but so is the Big Bang, or the life from soup, or any of the other conjectures being put forth.

The "Big Bang" theory is neither conjecture nor faith-based; it is based on the scientific method, which I gave links to, and definitions from informed sources.

The name "Big Bang" is a misnomer: it was neither big, nor did it bang. There was neither space nor time with which to provide for big and bang.

DC >> Science still cannot tell us what action formed our Universe ...

>> Science still cannot tell us how Life was formed on our planet ...

As yet, we do not have theories to explain these phenomena; we may have some hypotheses, but we continue to slog away at the questions. If you prefer to posit a hypothesis to answer these difficult questions by another hypothesis--and I am yet to have someone define "God" in an understandable fashion--then feel free.

TM: "As yet, we do not have theories to explain these phenomena; we may have some hypotheses, but we continue to slog away at the questions. If you prefer to posit a hypothesis to answer these difficult questions by another hypothesis--and I am yet to have someone define "God" in an understandable fashion--then feel free."

In my humble opinion, god can not be defined. The reason for this is that god can be known in only three ways...

(1) We can know what god is not. Thus, god is not ignorant; god is not changeable; etc.

(2) We can know that the world was created by god. For there must be a first cause of the world.

(3) We can know god by knowing Jesus, the Son of Man, hypostatically united to the Son of God. Thus we know that god was born of the Theotokos; god died on the Cross; god rose on the third day, etc.

None of these ways allow us to know the divine ousia (being or essence). Thus we can not define god.

We can, however, know that god exists as First Cause and through divine grace.

Trying to explain the unexplainable and trying to explain things that should not have an explanation is simply chasing around in circles. Yes, if we know Jesus, then we do know God, for Jesus was God made Man, a third of the Triune.

If we know what God is not, do we then know what He is? If He is not ignorant then he must have some level of intelligence, if He is not changeable then He is solid. We know He cares (or loves), for He did die on the Cross. We know He is faithful, for He kept His convenant with His people. We know He is jealous, we know He can be angry, we know many things about God, terms that define Him to His people.

Science gives us a lot of wonderful knowledge about how God works in the world and how He has (and is) creating and destroying. I think it absolutely marvelous that science can say "this is how God created the world".

BO >> In my humble opinion, god can not be defined.

If god cannot be defined, then how am I to understand what this god is supposed to be?

Am I to take your submission that god "can be known in only three ways..."

And, how am I to know what something is not, when I know not what that something is in the first place?

DC >> Trying to explain the unexplainable and trying to explain things that should not have an explanation ...

Why should things not have an explanation?

TM: "If god cannot be defined, then how am I to understand what this god is supposed to be?"

There are many things that can not be defined. Surely you have studied geometry at some time and know that 'point,' 'line,' etc. are not defined in geometry? That hasn't stopped physicists from using geometry in their theories.

There are three ways that men come to know things...

(1) by example,

(2) by properties,

(3) by scientific definition.

Children naturally come to know things by example. Ask a child what a dog is and he will say it is like 'Fido' or whatever dog he knows. Once a child starts going to school, he will be taught that there are ways of defining things... and that examples do not count as definitions. Yet there are things which men know only in terms of example... of having experienced it in real life. So it is wrong to discount example as a means of knowing things. It has its limitations, of course.

As the child grows he starts to think in terms of the properties of things. Thus the dog he knows as 'Fido' is associated with such things as color, size, furriness, number of legs, movements, etc. Some of thes associations are shared with other things having the name 'dog.' So when asked what a dog is he may say that dogs have small furry bodies with wagging tails and a wet tongue that almost always hangs out of its mouth, etc.

Later when he studies science, he will learn to give scientific definitions of things by genus and differentia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genus_differentia

Now when asked to define 'dog' he will say that a dog is Canis lupus familiaris.

It is important to understand that the child knows what a dog is long before he is able to give a scientific definition of it. In the same way, we can know god through our knowledge of what god is not, through our knowledge of god as First Cause and through our knowledge of the Son of God, Jesus --- even though we can not define god.

"I do not say that John or Jonathan will realize all this; but such is the character of that morrow which mere lapse of time can never make to dawn. The light which puts out our eyes is darkness to us. Only that day dawns to which we are awake. There is more day to dawn. The sun is but a morning star."

~ Henry David Thoreau; ***Waldin;*** "18. Conclusion."

BO >> There are many things that can not be defined. Surely you have studied geometry at some time and know that 'point,' 'line,' etc. are not defined in geometry? That hasn't stopped physicists from using geometry in their theories.

I can see a point; I can see a line; I can do geometry on these; we can build civilisations with these; we can journey to the stars too.

BO >> It is important to understand that the child knows what a dog is long before he is able to give a scientific definition of it.

Indeed, the child can see, touch, hear the dog, Canis lupus familiaris, perro, chien, hund, 狗 ...

Yes, TM, there are things you can do with a point and a line. Just like there are things we can do with our knowledge of God. Yet, explain a point. Is it a reference? Is it a particular place? Where does it start, where does it end? Why does it exist? What function does it have? Some are easy to explain, others are not.

I can see Gods Work, I can see Gods Word, I can build a faith upon these, we can build a religion upon these, we can journey to salvation with these.

Good for you DC.

I'm not into faith. I offered a definition of faith above.

TM: "I can see a point; I can see a line; I can do geometry on these; we can build civilisations with these; we can journey to the stars too."

Ha!! No one has ever seen a point or a line. They are mathematical constructs which exist only in the mind.

Ha! No one has ever seen a god or a sceadugenga. They are mythical constructs which exist only in the mind.

TM,

People saw Jesus, God made Man!!!!

DC,

ancient Indo-Aryans saw Krishna at Kurukshetra

Zarathustra and the ancient Persians saw and named Ahura Mazda the uncreated God

the Danaans saw Zeus, Apollo, Athena ...

the Canaanites saw El, Anat, Asherat ...

the Sumerians saw Enlil

At this stage, I relent. Like I said, I have no faith.

Keep the faith.

TM: "At this stage, I relent. Like I said, I have no faith."

You have a right to your opinions.

TM,

Thanks for your support.

Bill is right, you have a right to your opinion and God Bless you for the discussion.

Might I note that we are all acting on faith in this discussion. Which of us can prove to all the others that we exist as opposed to being a computer construction? A determined skeptic may reject any offered evidence as inadequate. Further, such a skeptic might seek to present their position as being intellectually honest, when in fact is it intellectually dishonest as it refuses to be open to any evidence.

The good thing is that we don't have to build the Kingdom, it is coming on its own. All we have to do is wait and believe. Yes, we are headed for certain economic death, but then, it is really just another cycle. We will suffer, and suffer greatly. The stones have been turned and the snake has come out.

It has been interesting reading all of your intelligent and well thought out responses basically τ̲̅ȍ my post. The realm of faith and the sphere of science aren't exactually mutually exclusive but complementary. God is above and beyond the sphere of reason, human reason which is why all attempts of science that is not seeking the truth cannot attain its ultimate end/goal. Faith is as John Paul II said i̶̲̥̅̊n̶̲̥̅̊ Fides et Ratio (1998) together with reason "two wings" by which we fly towards God. If truly can be set aside without denying His existence, i find that interesting and can only say its a contradiction i̶̲̥̅̊n̶̲̥̅̊ terms. The God question continues τ̲̅ȍ be relevant because within our terrain of rationality, God is the "unreasonable" τ̲̅ȍ our comprehension of all of reality as expressed i̶̲̥̅̊n̶̲̥̅̊ different ways i̶̲̥̅̊n̶̲̥̅̊ the world today. Crisis of all sorts; cultural, economic, political, social. The continued relevance of the God-question my friends pounds on our consciences τ̲̅ȍ allow the function of our endowed rationality seek the truth which sets us free.

Peter,

Certainly God has given us freewill. Certainly we are called to do right, to have compassion, to help the needy, to ease suffering where we can, to teach the Word of God to those we meet. Thy Kingdom, this will happen. God will return, installing his Kingdom on the face of the earth. Before his Kingdom comes, we must or at least should exercise our freewill in doing what is asked of us. Thy will be done, His will has been and will be done. This does not interfer with our exercising freewill in our daily lives. His will be done is a comfort, knowing that no matter what occurs here on earth, God will act within his nature.

I do not see where Thy Kindom Come, Thy Will Be Done minimizes the exercise or the affect of exercising freewill. We are called upon to live in this world UNTIL Thy Kindom Come, Thy Will Be Done. Jesus said it all, Render onto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God what is God's.

This is part of the comfort. Believing in Jesus as Saviour does NOT remove my duties here on earth. It just makes it easier.