It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Major Flaw in Hard Naturalism

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: Krazysh0t



I don't buy that. I feel like if something can be analyzed, natural or otherwise, science will attempt to understand it


Look, science operates under the assumption that there isn't anything except the natural world (methodological naturalism). It will not accept any explanation that isn't a natural one. EVER Full Stop. Science is a wonderful way of exploring the natural world, it's a horrible tool for exploring even the possibility of a supernatural realm within the universe and it is so by design.

Whether you realize it or not, you're claiming science can do something that science says it can't do and doesn't even want to talk about.



That's only because the supernatural doesn't have any definitions. But even then, if the supernatural is interacting with the natural, it should leave some effect on the natural that is detectable. If after discarding all other possibilities, all that is left is that supernatural then science will come to that conclusion. That would be how science would identify and accept the supernatural.




posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
The existence of natural processes is not a disproof of supernatural ones in the same way that the existence of articulated lorries does not disprove the existence of motorbikes.

Naturalism is not the belief that there are natural processes.

No matter how many natural processes are in your first bucket, it doesn't prove naturalism until there are no further proofs possible.

Naturalism is the belief, exclusively, that there are ONLY natural processes.

I'm not really saying that the bucket example or science proves naturalism. I'm just saying that it is the most likely answer at this point in time given the evidence we've uncovered and quantified.


Science cannot produce natural reason for some things (there is all sorts of quantum weirdness that is measurable but defies even mathematical explanation as to why the outcomes are the way they are). So science, while it makes naturalistic assumptions (that there are reasonable and natural processes behind its measurements), is not naturalism.

Well maybe quantum level interactions are the evidence that supernatural believers need to prove the supernatural. Quantum science is some cutting edge stuff, but you can't blame scientists for using their biases to drive their assumptions. Right now, there is no evidence for supernatural events, so naturally a scientist should proceed under the assumption that there is a natural cause for the event he is seeing. Though once natural explanations are exhausted he must proceed to the supernatural. Of course sometimes biases are impossible to overcome and you just need to wait a generation or two for a more open minded scientist to come around and blow the doors open on scientific thought as tends to be the case every so often.


Naturalism as a guiding philosophy, goes way beyond science. It says things that are are unsupported by science, because true science is limited in scope and will always remain so.

Science (defined in mathematical terms) tells us that because naturalism is an axiomatic system, it can never be internally consistent - the OP is one particular expression of that.

That's all fine and good, but I still don't see a need to believe in the supernatural just because the logic is flawed.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I'm not really saying that the bucket example or science proves naturalism. I'm just saying that it is the most likely answer at this point in time given the evidence we've uncovered and quantified.


Here is another one of those sweeping statements talking about evidence of naturalism. You do realize there are many theist who agree with virtually all realms of Science. What you don't seem to get is one can disprove an idea using logic, no evidence is needed. We don't need to scour about the universe searching for square circles because the idea of a square circle is internally inconsistent. We know naturalism cannot be true because it like a square circle leads us to an absurd conclusion, namely that we are biological automatons dancing to the tune of chemistry, not agents capable of rationalizing and reasoning about what is true.


You do realize that even theistic scientist think of science in the realm of methodological naturalism. If I want to describe the composition of water into hydrogen and oxygen I don't need to invoke God, but one may need to invoke God in order to explain ones ability to understand the decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen. You do realize that the Scientific Revolution was headed up by many theist who felt studying nature was a form of worship.

You say you want evidence for God. What exactly would you consider evidence of God? I mean anyone can say there is no evidence of something if they set their level of skepticism high enough. I mean I just gave you two syllogisms. The first explains that our ability to reason cannot be justified on naturalism. The second explains that it must be justified by something that is supernatural(i.e. outside of nature).


What you seem to be missing is that the second syllogism argues for the existence of God, while acknowledging everything in nature can be wholly explained in terms of non-rational causes(I.e. everything in nature can be explained in mechanistic terms). You seem to think that a syllogism is given to sound intelligent while not really trying to convey a message, and that is just wrong. That syllogism isn't there to sound fancy. Each premise is conveying an idea and the ideas follow from one another as via the logical rules if inference.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Theistic scientists believe in things without evidence. Science doesn't prevent you from doing that, but if a scientist believes in theism outside of science then they also understand that those beliefs aren't supported by science either. Or they should at least.

Also, just because theism drove science in the past is not a valid indicator that it is true over all.
edit on 1-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



If after discarding all other possibilities, all that is left is that supernatural then science will come to that conclusion.


Not without it becoming something other than science. By definition it's restricted from doing so.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

Science can evolve too.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Theistic scientists believe in things without evidence. Science doesn't prevent you from doing that, but if a scientist believes in theism outside of science then they also understand that those beliefs aren't supported by science either. Or they should at least.

Also, just because theism drove science in the past is not a valid indicator that it is true over all.


Atheistic scientists believe in things without evidence. It is in the definition that atheists assert there is no evidence for god or gods. Hence they believe in things that are not evidenced.

Atheism falls further outside of science than theism because atheism embraces ignorance.

Science is, and must always be, evidential - not based upon absence of evidence.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Theistic scientists believe in things without evidence. Science doesn't prevent you from doing that, but if a scientist believes in theism outside of science then they also understand that those beliefs aren't supported by science either. Or they should at least.


You seem incapable of realizing that you can have a priori knowledge of God in the same way you can have a priori knowledge about a bachelor being unmarried, or a square having four equal sides. You can also use scientific evidence to as support for premises is a logical syllogism.

I love how you continue to dodge defending your statements about evidence. I've asked you tons of questions you just ignore them all.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Most atheists are really agnostic atheists though. They'll readily admit to a god if you present the evidence for one. They are just erring on the side of no god for now because there isn't any evidence of one. It's simple logic.

Theism makes the claim of god. Theism needs to produce the evidence of the god. You can't just do it by refuting naturalism with a logical argument.
edit on 2-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


You seem incapable of realizing that you can have a priori knowledge of God

More like I just don't recognize that as a "thing" that I can be capable of realizing.

I've played the religion game and I never felt any connection to a god. Church was just a boring 1 hour sitting on an uncomfortable bench were I spent most of it daydreaming about being an X-men. So what you THINK you know doesn't mean that I know it or agree with it. I just see what you are doing here as a game to wiggle out of trying to produce the evidence of your claims of godhood.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




More like I just don't recognize that as a "thing" that I can be capable of realizing.


Okay, but you are capable so long as you aren't cheering cognitive dissonance on as you seem to be doing.




I've played the religion game and I never felt any connection to a god.


The very fact that you call it the religion game lets me know you never understood what it was about. It not a set of rituals you are supposed to follow but claims about reality.




So what you THINK you know doesn't mean that I know it or agree with it. I just see what you are doing here as a game to wiggle out of trying to produce the evidence of your claims of godhood.


I am sorry that is your perception of what I am doing, but it is incorrect. This is not a word game it is expressing a series of ideas, ideas which so far you have been completely unable to grasp.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The very fact that you call it the religion game lets me know you never understood what it was about. It not a set of rituals you are supposed to follow but claims about reality.

Yeah claims that didn't hold up. I used to spend time wondering how all this magical stuff happened back then but when in the past it suddenly stopped happening because it didn't align with reality of my current life. Then I just stopped believing because I tired of filling in the gaps to the questions with no answers.


I am sorry that is your perception of what I am doing, but it is incorrect. This is not a word game it is expressing a series of ideas, ideas which so far you have been completely unable to grasp.

Whatever you say.
edit on 2-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Yeah claims that didn't hold up. I used to spend time wondering how all this magical stuff happened back then but when in the past it suddenly stopped happening because it didn't align with reality of my current life.


You might have found your answer if you looked hard enough. Did you ever stop to wonder why God preformed the miracles he preformed? I mean this type of rebuttal is something I would expect from a young child. I get that this may be honest, but you will never have knowledge of God with your current thought process. Basically, all you have done here is stomp your foot and tell us all these things about the evidence you have for your view of the world, while failing to realize your view of the world makes all that evidence untrustworthy.

Lets test your reading comprehension skills:




No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes(i.e. causes without insight into logical relations)


Please explain to me what you think I am trying to say here.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Most atheists are really agnostic atheists though. They'll readily admit to a god if you present the evidence for one. They are just erring on the side of no god for now because there isn't any evidence of one. It's simple logic.

Theism makes the claim of god. Theism needs to produce the evidence of the god. You can't just do it by refuting naturalism with a logical argument.

I honestly think that, while many atheists cite that they will admit to a god if evidence is presented, very few actually would. They would do as has always been done and dispute the interpretation of the evidence.

In the specific context of this thread, there are many evidences of the supernatural but in all cases, these evidences are contested by those with a naturalistic belief. The issue is not one of evidence, but of acceptance of evidence.

For example: according to naturalism, everything that exists must have a natural cause. Due to the finiteness of all natural things, there must have been a time before anything existed. This state of 'the absence of anything' leaves no first cause from which everything could spring, so there must have been an 'uncaused first cause', which naturalism says that there cannot be. Yet everything exists. So there is overwhelming evidence for a supernatural origin of the natural universe. The form, logic and rationality of the mechanisms of the universe as observed indicates a highly systematic and creative principle behind that first cause. The only natural analogue we have of such a creative and systematic source is intelligence. The scale, integration and complexity observed indicates a super-intelligence. The physical mechanics of such a creation implies not only tremendous power but also tremendous finesse. Similarly, if you explore further down this track there is evidence of the necessity for the atemporality and non-locality of this creator. So the theist standpoint is neither irrational or unevidenced, as is often suggested (I have limited this to objective evidence but that does not imply that subjective evidences are not apparent as well).

In the light of what the universe presents to us, "erring on the side of no god", especially on the presumption of an absence of evidence, is still error.

edit on 2/3/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


You seem incapable of realizing that you can have a priori knowledge of God

More like I just don't recognize that as a "thing" that I can be capable of realizing.

I've played the religion game and I never felt any connection to a god. Church was just a boring 1 hour sitting on an uncomfortable bench were I spent most of it daydreaming about being an X-men. So what you THINK you know doesn't mean that I know it or agree with it. I just see what you are doing here as a game to wiggle out of trying to produce the evidence of your claims of godhood.

Thanks Krazysh0t.

I actually appreciate the subjective experience being injected into this thread. Taking, as I do, the stance that someone's personal experience is usually irrefutable.

I am very different from you in that I seem to be frequently aware of the numinous, not only in trying to attain that state but also at times when I least expect it, particularly when I become aware of some new fact that integrates and explains my previous understandings and experiences.

It is like when you are reading a good book and the author comes to mind. You gain insight into the person and suddenly feel affinity, although you may have never met. You begin to see the interplay, not only of the created characters, but also with the author and process of writing.

Interestingly, I am more likely to appreciate that state while studying or working, than in a church (but it has been known to happen). Science is frequently a source of awe.

And then there have been things I have experienced that I cannot explain otherwise: answered prayers, strange coincidences, inexplicable knowledge and unlearned abilities as examples.

I have asked myself if these mental states are perhaps self-delusional but that does not explain things like rain falling from a cloudless Sydney sky putting out a house fire threatening my home or someone insensate and paralysed from a back injury getting up and walking immediately after prayer (with several doctors and two families present). I definitely can't do those things so...

I can see you are a pragmatist and a thinker and I thank you for your contributions to friendly debate.



edit on 2/3/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
I honestly think that, while many atheists cite that they will admit to a god if evidence is presented, very few actually would. They would do as has always been done and dispute the interpretation of the evidence.


I certainly cannot argue for everyone and some people DO engrain their biases to a very stubborn degree, but if the evidence remains irrefutable to all attempts to explain it naturally, eventually they'll come around.


In the specific context of this thread, there are many evidences of the supernatural but in all cases, these evidences are contested by those with a naturalistic belief. The issue is not one of evidence, but of acceptance of evidence.

For example: according to naturalism, everything that exists must have a natural cause. Due to the finiteness of all natural things, there must have been a time before anything existed. This state of 'the absence of anything' leaves no first cause from which everything could spring, so there must have been an 'uncaused first cause', which naturalism says that there cannot be. Yet everything exists. So there is overwhelming evidence for a supernatural origin of the natural universe. The form, logic and rationality of the mechanisms of the universe as observed indicates a highly systematic and creative principle behind that first cause. The only natural analogue we have of such a creative and systematic source is intelligence. The scale, integration and complexity observed indicates a super-intelligence. The physical mechanics of such a creation implies not only tremendous power but also tremendous finesse. Similarly, if you explore further down this track there is evidence of the necessity for the atemporality and non-locality of this creator. So the theist standpoint is neither irrational or unevidenced, as is often suggested (I have limited this to objective evidence but that does not imply that subjective evidences are not apparent as well).

In the light of what the universe presents to us, "erring on the side of no god", especially on the presumption of an absence of evidence, is still error.

But our universe could just be a product of natural forces occurring on a greater than universal scale. The reason we can't see the beginning is because one cannot study things outside his own universe since everything within is supposedly self-contained.

When we talk about the scales that the universe works on, the law of large numbers comes into play considerably. It isn't right to say that the odds of something occurring are impossibly low. I don't buy the irreducible complexity argument. Because when I look at the universe I see how things start out simple and move to increasing complexity as time goes on. Sure there is entropy working against this all the time, but the universe' source of energy is rather plentiful at the moment. So entropy is easily countered.

What I see throughout the universe is the computer scientist pattern of recursion. Take the previous generation, manipulate it and produce a new generation that is dissimilar from the first but still clearly takes after its parents. So many natural processes follow this pattern. We call it evolution in biology, but chemical processes behave this way. Heck this can even be seen with the grouping of mass from atoms to molecules to structures, etc.

Run any computer simulation on a recursive pattern and you will see how quickly the complexity of what you are looking at increases with each iteration. Recursive formulas are some of the quickest loops you can program to run a computer out of memory (if you don't close it properly).

This is all because these processes are additive processes. Instead of taking a larger object and whittling it down to a human, the human grows into its shape cell by cell. Humans didn't walk out of the oceans fully formed, it took a process of slowly building up the intricate systems that make humans human over millions of years to get where we are today. First hydrogen had to be created then larger atoms are created which create structures other than stars. These structures lead to newer structures. This pattern is EVERYWHERE in our universe.

In mathematics you see it with the Fibonacci Sequence. 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13
edit on 3-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I always try to find a natural explanation for events. I moved just north of Maryland in PA to make my commute to work easier. I moved to an apartment that used to be a servants quarters in a house that was built in the mid-1800's. Recently I've noticed that I've started to misplace things or things aren't where I thought I left them. One day I came home, let my dog out and by the time I get back to the house my front door is locked (but my top floor door was still open).

With me telling this story it looks like my house might be haunted, but I'm pretty sure it isn't. I don't have any of the other creepy sensations that go with the place being haunted. I'm not feeling watched. My dog doesn't act any stranger than he usually does. I've just decided I'm just high and being forgetful. The time the door locked, I probably just did it by accident without thinking.

Though it comes across as a fun story if I tell it right.



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: chr0naut
I honestly think that, while many atheists cite that they will admit to a god if evidence is presented, very few actually would. They would do as has always been done and dispute the interpretation of the evidence.


I certainly cannot argue for everyone and some people DO engrain their biases to a very stubborn degree, but if the evidence remains irrefutable to all attempts to explain it naturally, eventually they'll come around.


In the specific context of this thread, there are many evidences of the supernatural but in all cases, these evidences are contested by those with a naturalistic belief. The issue is not one of evidence, but of acceptance of evidence.

For example: according to naturalism, everything that exists must have a natural cause. Due to the finiteness of all natural things, there must have been a time before anything existed. This state of 'the absence of anything' leaves no first cause from which everything could spring, so there must have been an 'uncaused first cause', which naturalism says that there cannot be. Yet everything exists. So there is overwhelming evidence for a supernatural origin of the natural universe. The form, logic and rationality of the mechanisms of the universe as observed indicates a highly systematic and creative principle behind that first cause. The only natural analogue we have of such a creative and systematic source is intelligence. The scale, integration and complexity observed indicates a super-intelligence. The physical mechanics of such a creation implies not only tremendous power but also tremendous finesse. Similarly, if you explore further down this track there is evidence of the necessity for the atemporality and non-locality of this creator. So the theist standpoint is neither irrational or unevidenced, as is often suggested (I have limited this to objective evidence but that does not imply that subjective evidences are not apparent as well).

In the light of what the universe presents to us, "erring on the side of no god", especially on the presumption of an absence of evidence, is still error.
But our universe could just be a product of natural forces occurring on a greater than universal scale. The reason we can't see the beginning is because one cannot study things outside his own universe since everything within is supposedly self-contained.

When we talk about the scales that the universe works on, the law of large numbers comes into play considerably. It isn't right to say that the odds of something occurring are impossibly low. I don't buy the irreducible complexity argument. Because when I look at the universe I see how things start out simple and move to increasing complexity as time goes on. Sure there is entropy working against this all the time, but the universe' source of energy is rather plentiful at the moment. So entropy is easily countered.


Granted that we are talking vast scales and large numbers, however, those scales and numbers are still finite. Even in the vastness of this universe and taking into consideration its time-scale, the probabilities for such complexities emerging are vanishingly small.

Also, although entropic forces are small, they are inexorable, whereas emergent organisation usually accelerates towards a point of either stability or chaos and then plateaus there.

The amount of energy in the universe is not a limiting factor on entropy. It is the smoothness of energy's distribution which produces entropy. When the distribution is most smooth there are no differences of energy to produce a flow and to do any work - that is maximum entropy. Of course, doing any work redistributes the energy faster and therefore accelerates entropy. As you have noted, energy differentials are abundant so the universe has sources for doing the work of emergence.

That brings up another issue, a universe with fewer components, and rather evenly distributed as theorised in Big Bang models, has a higher entropy than a complex and widely distributed system. Consider the evolution of our universe from six types of quarks, themselves once superimposed spatially upon each other and indistinguishable, you will see that almost pure entropy has been lost since the Big Bang singularity, which is counter to the way physics is known to work now.

So even in some fairly fundamental and supposedly well understood processes we have conundrums without explanation. Yet science, instead of calling out the naked emperor, conveniently blinkers itself to unreasonable inconsistency and goes with the pretty metaphor, despite the shortcomings.

Entropy is not easily countered by emergence.

We have no hard evidenced data, that we even have the foggiest notion of anything that may have proceeded the 'scientific' age. We look at the CMB & Hubble constant and then act like the Big Bang is the only thing that might explain it. Then we have to fudge the figures with a superluminal inflation which somehow stopped. It's all unphysical, mythologic, BS with no more validity than the universe being a flat disk carried on the backs of four elephants riding on the back of a great turtle.




What I see throughout the universe is the computer scientist pattern of recursion. Take the previous generation, manipulate it and produce a new generation that is dissimilar from the first but still clearly takes after its parents. So many natural processes follow this pattern. We call it evolution in biology, but chemical processes behave this way. Heck this can even be seen with the grouping of mass from atoms to molecules to structures, etc.

Run any computer simulation on a recursive pattern and you will see how quickly the complexity of what you are looking at increases with each iteration. Recursive formulas are some of the quickest loops you can program to run a computer out of memory (if you don't close it properly).

This is all because these processes are additive processes. Instead of taking a larger object and whittling it down to a human, the human grows into its shape cell by cell. Humans didn't walk out of the oceans fully formed, it took a process of slowly building up the intricate systems that make humans human over millions of years to get where we are today. First hydrogen had to be created then larger atoms are created which create structures other than stars. These structures lead to newer structures. This pattern is EVERYWHERE in our universe.

In mathematics you see it with the Fibonacci Sequence. 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13


Recursion, program, pattern, sequence and life all require a certain level of complexity prior to them being able to display emergent properties and greater complexity. Yet we know the big bang singularity was the ultimate in entropy.

To not ask the questions 'because the pretty pictures' isn't science, it is distraction.

Somehow, we are in a very complex and inter-relational universe. A creative intelligence is as good as any other explanation and better than most. Perhaps that is why it endures. But then if you accept a creative intelligence, you have to also consider motive and motivation, being as important as physical process. If motivation is important, there is likely to be a reason for our existence, which opens up many "cans of worms", like what then is our duty to that creator?

edit on 6/3/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Snip

We have no hard evidenced data, that we even have the foggiest notion of anything that may have proceeded the 'scientific' age. We look at the CMB & Hubble constant and then act like the Big Bang is the only thing that might explain it. Then we have to fudge the figures with a superluminal inflation which somehow stopped. It's all unphysical, mythologic, BS with no more validity than the universe being a flat disk carried on the backs of four elephants riding on the back of a great turtle.

Sorry, I snipped a bunch of your text for space. I promise I read it all though.

I understand what you are saying here, but it really looks like you are saying that because science cannot explain all the finer details of entropy then science is wrong. But science being science only strives to answer questions which it has evidence for. You are right in that we don't understand everything about entropy and we likely have a long ways to go, but that doesn't mean we aren't on the right track.


Recursion, program, pattern, sequence and life all require a certain level of complexity prior to them being able to display emergent properties and greater complexity. Yet we know the big bang singularity was the ultimate in entropy.

To not ask the questions 'because the pretty pictures' isn't science, it is distraction.

Somehow, we are in a very complex and inter-relational universe. A creative intelligence is as good as any other explanation and better than most. Perhaps that is why it endures. But then if you accept a creative intelligence, you have to also consider motive and motivation, being as important as physical process. If motivation is important, there is likely to be a reason for our existence, which opens up many "cans of worms", like what then is our duty to that creator?

Perhaps, but at the same time the evidence isn't there. It's also highly possible that this "creative intelligence" is solely a product of humanity's fear of being alone. Fear of dying and that being the end. Fear that life isn't fair and that good doesn't always triumph over evil.

When we are scared it can help to create stories of humans triumphing over our fears to help inspire us to do the same. In that way religion can be beneficial to humans, but you mention things like duty. If we have this supposed to duty, when isn't it manifest to us or apparent? Why us? We just got done talking about the scales of the universe. Comparatively we are barely a blip in the sea of the cosmos. You can't even see a human from space. Why are we so important?

The difference between religion and science is that religion claims to have all the answers. Science doesn't, but religion is constantly playing catch up to our understanding of science.

You are right in that I cannot disprove creative intelligence, but I choose not to worry about it. If this deity exists and needs me, it'll let me know.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join