The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

Elioenai26 · Jul 22, 2012

Davian said:
No. Atheists lack a belief in deities. That's it. One more time:

Atheists lack a belief in deities.

Every definition of atheism given to me by atheists in this forum up until today has been, word for word, the one I used in my apologia.

Now if the one you have given me now is different than the one I used, why have you changed it?

Davian said:
There may be individuals that say that their lack belief in deities is warranted. You would then need a qualifier in labeling them; agnostic, ignostic, gnostic, etc.

Every view you listed is treated in the apologia.

Davian said:
In no way would this make atheism "false", or even "wrong". If Christianity were true (which begs the question - which particular flavour?), then only those that say 'there are no deities' would be wrong.

Of course it would prove it false. Remember in the apologia, we established that the opposite of true is false. If evidence can be shown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, which is the purpose of this series of works, then any view which maintains a position opposite of this is false.

The trouble atheists find themselves in is that they want to be atheists but they don't want the burden of proof placed on them to have to defend a positive claim, so they shirk the responsibility by attempting to take a neutral position. This is fine but most atheists here in their beliefs and statements are actually behaving more like agnostics than the traditional atheist.

It was Karl Marx that once said that an agnostic was simply a gutless atheist. He seemed to be speaking with a sense of disgust for agnostics but he may have been closer to the truth than many would like to admit.

Davian · Jul 22, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
I do not know if you did'nt read the apologia in it's entirety or what but I have included many citations in it.

I saw no links to scientific papers.

Elioenai26 said:
Davian, my friend, do you really seriously maintain that the Law of Causality is not self-evident?

Do you deny that this is the fundamental principle of science? Without the Law of Causality, without this self-evident principle, what do scientists base their observations and research on?

Francis Bacon and even someone you should know much about, David Hume, admit that to deny this Law as self-evident is to deny rationality!

The very process of rational thinking requires us to put together thoughts (causes) that result in conclusions (the effects). If you deny the Law of Causality as being self-evident, what caused you to come to that conclusion???

"The Copenhagen interpretation - due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr - remains the quantum mechanical formalism that is currently most widely accepted amongst physicists, some 75 years after its enunciation. According to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but instead must be considered a final renunciation of the classical idea of "causality". "

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elioenai26 said:
Are you saying that the universe is something other than "all space, all time, and all matter"?????

The current instantiation of the cosmos appears to have had a beginning; *you* are the one claiming that there is scientific evidence that the universe cannot be eternal. Provide it.

And while you are at it: this 'eternal' deity that you are positing - how long did it wait, prior to 'creating the universe', as you claim?

Elioenai26 said:
I have copy and pasted nothing from rickbeckman. I do not even know who rickbeckman is.

Whatever. I found it too funny to formulate a proper response the first time around:

Show me where you got the idea that the prevailing cosmological model posits that the uranium we find on Earth today is infinitely old.

Elioenai26 · Jul 23, 2012

Davian said:
I saw no links to scientific papers.

I've provided the appropriate and necessary references for every scientist's quote as well as references to laws, principles, and scientific evidence that has been held to be true by the scientific community for the last several decades. This evidence is nothing new and all of it has been available to the public for some time. You may check the references at your leisure.

Davian said:
"The Copenhagen interpretation - due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr - remains the quantum mechanical formalism that is currently most widely accepted amongst physicists, some 75 years after its enunciation. According to this interpretation, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but instead must be considered a final renunciation of the classical idea of "causality". "

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am familiar with quantum mechanics. What is your point. State your case.

Davian said:
The current instantiation of the cosmos appears to have had a beginning; *you* are the one claiming that there is scientific evidence that the universe cannot be eternal. Provide it.

The scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning is the scientific evidence that it is not eternal. This is self-evident.

Davian said:
And while you are at it: this 'eternal' deity that you are positing - how long did it wait, prior to 'creating the universe', as you claim?

I do not know, nor do I see how this is relevant.

Davian said:
Show me where you got the idea that the prevailing cosmological model posits that the uranium we find on Earth today is infinitely old.

When did I ever posit that radioactive uranium is infinitely old? I said that if the universe were eternal, all radioactive uranium would have decayed and would now be lead. But this is not the case. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

Eudaimonist · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
I said that if the universe were eternal, all radioactive uranium would have decayed and would now be lead.

Cosmic Origins of Uranium

Not that I believe in an infinite past, but uranium isn't a finite resource. New uranium is created in supernova explosions.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Archaeopteryx · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
1. How is the argument circular, when I never used one verse from the Bible to substantiate the argument? The verses come at the very end to show that the God of the Bible is one who can fit the criteria for the Uncaused Cause which was proven to be necessary for the existence of the universe by scientific observation and irrefutable philosophical argumentation.

2. I even mentioned several times throughout the apologia that there was no need to appeal to any religious text whatsover to establish what was being established. Its purely scientific and philosophical.

3. This apologia is far from over. My aim in theses 6 pages was to establish through scientific evidence and philosophical argumentation that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning and therefore owes it's existence not to itself, but to a supernatural cause outside of itself. I have not made a case for anything beyond theism at this point. My intentions are to answer any questions about what I have presented so far, and then proceed from there.

First, even if we grant that your argument establishes the necessity of an "uncaused cause", it is not accurate to say that you have established the need for a supernatural uncaused cause, much less a personal and intelligent uncaused cause. Second, how can we even make sense of supernatural causes resulting in natural effects? Our common notions of causality apply to the natural world. An effect is not unlike its cause. What you are positing in this argument, however, is that there is a supernatural cause that is radically different from its natural effect. To our knowledge, this has never been observed. You are taking our common idea of causality as it applies to the natural and saying that it must also apply outside the natural world.

Davian · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
Every definition of atheism given to me by atheists in this forum up until today has been, word for word, the one I used in my apologia.

Now if the one you have given me now is different than the one I used, why have you changed it?

Every view you listed is treated in the apologia.

And you continue to lump them together as 'atheist'. That is where you error, attempting to group individuals by what they do not believe.

Do you group people by the hobbies that they do not participate in?

By the pets that they do not have?

Elioenai26 said:
Of course it would prove it false. Remember in the apologia, we established that the opposite of true is false.

No, "we" did not.

Elioenai26 said:
If evidence can be shown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, which is the purpose of this series of works, then any view which maintains a position opposite of this is false.

I have ten coins in my pocket. Do you believe that to be true?

Elioenai26 said:
The trouble atheists find themselves in is that they want to be atheists but they don't want the burden of proof placed on them to have to defend a positive claim, so they shirk the responsibility by attempting to take a neutral position.

Atheism *is* the neutral position.

Elioenai26 said:
This is fine but most atheists here in their beliefs and statements are actually behaving more like agnostics than the traditional atheist.

What is a "traditional" atheist?

Do you not understand that there agnostic atheists?

Of course, if you were able to meet your own burden of proof you would not be complaining about this.

Elioenai26 said:
It was Karl Marx that once said that an agnostic was simply a gutless atheist. He seemed to be speaking with a sense of disgust for agnostics but he may have been closer to the truth than many would like to admit.

Closer to what truth?

I am not agnostic on this matter.

quatona · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
This particular argument shall rely heavily on scientific observation which should appeal to the scientific minded.
The argument is listed below:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

For several reasons I have problems with this premise that is so often brought up as being self-evident.
1. Concluding from the laws observed within the universe on the laws that apply to the universe itself is jumping to conclusions.
2. If, however, you insist on the validity of this conclusion we have to consistently apply it to all options that are offered for an "explanation". Your own final conclusion (a being external to the universe created matter, space and time) violates this criterium just as much - since nowhere in this universe do we observe non-physical, timeless, spaceless (in short: "spirituality") being able to create matter. If it is true that scientists postulate causality, this idea of "causality" is certainly not meant and not covered by it. It doesn´t match the very concept that you are appealing to.
3. If the reason why "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is considered self-evident is our observation within the universe, we get a very particular meaning of "beginning", since nowhere in this universe have we ever observed something "beginning" in the strict sense of the word. All we observe is permanent transformation of matter. So when we describe our observations as "the beginning of existence" we are actually using "beginning" in the meaning of "transformation".

2. The universe began to exist at some point in the distant past.

Here´s the rub: If we do not want to invoke false equivocations and remain consistent with "beginning" and "cause" as they are necessarily meant in the first premise, this statement has to read "Something physical transformed into the universe at some point in the distant past".

Note also this contradiction: Here you say: "The universe began to exist at some point in the distant past", whereas in your final conclusions you postulate that time is a property that was created along with the universe.

Archaeopteryx · Jul 23, 2012

quatona said:
For several reasons I have problems with this premise that is so often brought up as being self-evident.
1. Concluding from the laws observed within the universe on the laws that apply to the universe itself is jumping to conclusions.
2. If, however, you insist on the validity of this conclusion we have to consistently apply it to all options that are offered for an "explanation". Your own final conclusion (a being external to the universe created matter, space and time) violates this criterium just as much - since nowhere in this universe do we observe non-physical, timeless, spaceless (in short: "spirituality") being able to create matter. If it is true that scientists postulate causality, this idea of "causality" is certainly not meant and not covered by it. It doesn´t match the very concept that you are appealing to.
3. If the reason why "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is considered self-evident is our observation within the universe, we get a very particular meaning of "beginning", since nowhere in this universe have we ever observed something "beginning" in the strict sense of the word. All we observe is permanent transformation of matter. So when we describe our observations as "the beginning of existence" we are actually using "beginning" in the meaning of "transformation".

Here´s the rub: If we do not want to invoke false equivocations and remain consistent with "beginning" and "cause" as they are necessarily meant in the first premise, this statement has to read "Something physical transformed into the universe at some point in the distant past".

It's interesting how a concept, like causality, that has meaning for phenomena in the natural world is taken to apply beyond the natural world in this argument. The term's familiar usage is being exploited, but it might not even make sense to use it in speaking of something "beyond" the natural.

Note also this contradiction: Here you say: "The universe began to exist at some point in the distant past", whereas in your final conclusions you postulate that time is a property that was created along with the universe.

Which raises the question of whether it even makes sense to postulate "a time before" the universe was created.

quatona · Jul 23, 2012

Archaeopteryx said:
It's interesting how a concept, like causality, that has meaning for phenomena in the natural world is taken to apply beyond the natural world in this argument. The term's familiar usage is being exploited, but it might not even make sense to use it in speaking of something "beyond" the natural.

Yes. To put it shortly:
How can we possibly conclude that what is observed as true about the physical within time and space must also be true about something that´s allegedly non-physical, in the absence of time and space?
And how come that the argument as presented has no problem with exhaustively violating this - its own - very premise in the further process?

Or, in other words: Why is it that an argument that starts with the exclusion of extraordinary events (and pretends to transcend it from the physical world on some assumed beyond realm) ends with the very postulation of extraordinary processes in its keyposition?

quatona · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
1. Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause is responsible for creating time, space, and matter, this Cause must be outside of them. This Cause must be without limits i.e infinite.

Doesn´t follow.

2. Unimaginably powerful,

Doesn´t follow. It just needs to be powerful enough to create a universe.

to create the entire universe out of nothing.

Out of nothing??? Have you forgotten all about your premises?

3. Supremely intelligent to design the universe with such precision.

I fail to see how you managed to arrive at the conclusion that this creation must have been a purposeful act, and that the universe as it is was the intended goal. Thus, unless I have missed anything, this is not a conclusion but the very - so far - unsupported premise.

4. Personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space material universe. (an impersonal force has no capacity to make choices)

At which point in your deduction did you establish that the creation of the universe must have been a choice?

Furthermore: "to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space material universe" - have you forgotten how often you have appealed here to the axiom "something can not come from nothing" and that "a state of nothingness" is therefore an impossibility?

Paradoxum · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
Kant's agnosticism

Kant's views are even more incredible than Hume's. Kant maintained that it was not possible to know the world as it really is. According to Kant, the structure of your senses and your mind forms all sense data, so that you never really know the thing in itself. You only are able to know the thing to you after your mind and senses form it. Therefore according to Kant we are locked in complete agnosticism about the real world. However, like Hume, Kant violates the Law on Noncontradiction. He contradicts his own premise by saying that no one can know the real world while he claims to know something about it, namely that the real world is unknowable! In effect, he says that the truth about the real world is that there are no truths about the real world. He even goes a step beyond Hume and committs the "nothing but" fallacy which implies that he has "more than" knowledge. Kant says he knows the data that gets to his brain is nothing but phenomena, but in order to know this, he would have to be able to see more than just the phenomena. In order to differentiate between the two (the phenomena and noumena), you have to be able to perceive where one ends and the other begins. If there is no way to determine between the two, and you can't see how they might differ, then it makes much more sense to assume that they are the same! In other words that the idea in your mind accurately represents the thing in the noumena or the real world.

I don't think this is correct. Kant says that the world we perceive is the world of appearances, but just because it appears that way doesn't mean it is really like that. The true world is the 'intelligible world'. We are part of this world when we use our reason. So for Kant reason is free from the unsureness of the knowledge of the world of appearances. This also means he doesn't contradict himself.

Kant even makes arguments for belief in God, though I think he was actually agnostic towards true knowledge of His existence. I can't remember right now why Kant said knowledge of God is unknowable. I do remember that Kant said that the cosmological argument relies on the ontological argument. I'm not sure if this also applies to the kalam cosmological argument.

1. Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause is responsible for creating time, space, and matter, this Cause must be outside of them. This Cause must be without limits i.e infinite.

Sure.

2. Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be powerful in the normal sense of the word. God isn't really really strong. He hasn't got alot of a thing called power. He can just do anything. It wouldn't require lots of effort, like the word power seems to imply.

3. Supremely intelligent to design the universe with such precision.

How do you know the universe isn't just random, or that this is the only way a universe could exist?

You go through these last few points so quickly, but these are the most important ones if you want to prove a personal God.

4. Personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space material universe. (an impersonal force has no capacity to make choices)

Why would a choice need to be made? To change a state of nothingness into something seems to imply time (no matter how short). I don't think timelessness works like that and you need to prove why it does.

Lord Emsworth · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
From this conclusion, we must ask: What would this First Cause be like that caused the universe to come into existence?

Again we need not appeal to any religious text. We can discover what some of this First Cause's characteristics would be by looking at the evidence.

1. Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause is responsible for creating time, space, and matter, this Cause must be outside of them. This Cause must be without limits i.e infinite.
2. Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing.
3. Supremely intelligent to design the universe with such precision.
4. Personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space material universe. (an impersonal force has no capacity to make choices)

You see, a lot of what has been posted is simply eyewash. A lot of ink has been spilled to expound on sometimes more sometimes less relevant things. The real pertinent issues are left unexplained.

What the heck is immaterial?
Where does non-intelligence end and intelligence begin?
What does it even mean for an immaterial entity to be intelligent?
Is it possible that such an entity creates stuff?
From nothing?
What exactly is personal?
And so on, and so forth.

There are plenty of issues that would need to be addressed in great detail. Instead there is paragraph after paragraph about causes, about excluded middles, and about whatnot.

What you have posted is as if somebody were to make an argument for unicorns, and, this is the clincher, expouned long and broadly on the morphology, the feeding habits, the history and evolution of the horse. Maybe about how to ride them. The really important issues, the things that distinguish horses from unicorns, like the horn or the clover-shaped hooves, are not really argued for but rather introduced by sleight-of-hand trickery. Lastly, a connection to legends, stories and beliefs about unicorns is being made.

In other words there is a lot of talk. A lot of talk that is intended to give the appearance of having something to say. But all in all it is pretty weak and meager.

(Now of course I already know that apologists never have really tackled the important issues and that they are not going to address them either, and so can draw my own conclusion from that.

)

SaraJarvis · Jul 23, 2012

Hilarious. While I was in uni this morning, I ran this through our system's plagiarism checker, and everything is either copied directly from online sources, or simply rephrased by the OP.

If the OP handed this in as a paper, he would receive a huge (P) on the top of the page, and would be swiftly removed from the course.

KCfromNC · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
You say that atheism does not make a positive claim, I think you are mistaken for one main reason:

Atheists, per your definition, maintain that they lack a belief in gods or God. Correct?

Now if they maintain this position, then they are actually saying that they possess a belief in something else

Yes, the belief that they can accurately know what they do and don't believe.

namely that they believe that their lack of belief in gods or God is warranted. But if they maintain that their view is warranted, then what are they basing this on? They have to be basing it on the fact that they have surveyed the available evidence and have found it wanting.

Please stop telling other people what they believe and why. Not only are you bad at it, but it's offensive and arrogant to pretend that you know their thoughts better than they do. I know you feel you have a hotline to god, but all of your mistakes trying to use it to be a fortune teller makes your personal revelation seem very unreliable.

KCfromNC · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
Objections to the existence of truth.

Some may challenge: "There is no such thing as truth!"

Who, specifically? I'd be more interested in actual objections rather than strawmen.

We have established truth exists, but can it be known? Some agnostics and skeptics maintain that truth cannot be known. They say that truth cannot be known, but then claim that their view is true.

Who, specifically? Same objection as above.

KCfromNC · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
We have established earlier through the refutation of several agnostic positions, that truth about God, if He exists, can be known.

No, even if what you say is true you've just shown that current objections to knowledge about god aren't conclusive. You've done nothing to show that this knowledge exists and can be found.

But how do we get this information? By using induction to investigate God the same way we use it to investivate other things we cannot physically see with our two eyes. We observe effects.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Before you can go looking for evidence of something, you first need a concrete definition of that something which includes specific descriptions of what we'd expect to find and not find if that object were real.

You would rightly infer that a human mind was behind this work!

Except for all the cases where it isn't, of course.

Reasoning, induction, and deduction work together to give you an accurate explanation of this apologia. It is represented below:

1. All apologetic literature has at least one human author (premise based on investigation and induction)
2. Apologia is a piece of apologetic literature. (observation)
3. Therefore, Apologia has at least one author. (conclusion)

We see from the above that an argument need not be empirically verifiable to be true beyond a reasonable doubt!

How do you use an argument firmly based in observation and conclude that an argument need not be empirically verifiable to be true beyond a reasonable doubt?

Many Americans (I live in America), are apathetic, cynical, or ignorant about truth when it comes to the various philosophies and religious worldviews.

ad hominem - specifically poisoning the well.

But I dare say they are not apatheitc or cynical about how their banks handle their money! Nor are they apathetic about how their doctors treat their ailments. We care about finances and health because they matter to us!

Yep - people worry more about stuff which is real. Or has real effects :

To say that truth in religion does not matter is to overlook temporal religious implications. For example, in Saudi Arabia, some schoolchildren are taught that Jews are inferior and that non-Muslims (infidels which I wager many who read this shall fall into this category) should be killed. Now thankfully most Muslims do not hold these views. But this jihadic doctrine comes straight from the Qur'an. Is it really true that there is a god who wants all of his people to fight and kill all infidels? Does this religious "truth" matter?

Before you take up arms, it is necessary to remember that in many European countries and in America, schoolchildre are taught in school that humans really are not that qualitatively different than a monkey!! They are taught that monkeys and humans alike are the result of blind naturalistic forces and that humans have no objective or intrinsic value or worth over any other creature that roams the earth or swims through the seas. Does this atheisitc "truth" matter. Does it matter to tell a child this when they are growing up instead of telling them that they are extremely valuble and precious because they were made in the image of God? The implications are too far reaching to be comprehended. Mother Teresa taught Hindus in India the Christian principles of caring for the poor and suffering in a country where the suffering were considered to be "reaping what they sowed" in a past life! Does this religious idea matter? Ask the millions whose lives she touched. Does the religious teaching of karma matter? Ask the millions still suffering.

Seems like someone's upset that reality doesn't line up with their religious beliefs.

Stoneghost · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
But if you can't, then I would ask you to address the apologia specifically.

Why would I reply to specifics when the problem is with the foundation. If you were to build a brick house and built a wood house instead I'm not going to discuss your choice of trim color. I'm going to tell you the house is made of the wrong material. I am also not going to do your work for you and make the foundation of a brick house, you have to do that yourself if you want me to live in your house.

Elioenai26 · Jul 23, 2012

Thanks for all of the replies lady and gentlemen. I am currently at work and shall have to give my responses when I am free to do so.

Until then, have a nice day!

Davian · Jul 23, 2012

Elioenai26 said:
I've provided the appropriate and necessary references for every scientist's quote as well as references to laws, principles, and scientific evidence that has been held to be true by the scientific community for the last several decades. This evidence is nothing new and all of it has been available to the public for some time. You may check the references at your leisure.

I am familiar with quantum mechanics. What is your point. State your case.

The scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning is the scientific evidence that it is not eternal. This is self-evident.

No, it is not.

quatona has stated the issues more eloquently than myself, so I will leave you to respond to his posts.

Elioenai26 said:
I do not know, nor do I see how this is relevant.

As you have yet to establish the possibility of deities, I see no point in pursuing this further.

Elioenai26 said:
When did I ever posit that radioactive uranium is infinitely old? I said that if the universe were eternal, all radioactive uranium would have decayed and would now be lead. But this is not the case. Therefore the universe cannot be eternal.

That the universe is eternal is not incompatible with the prevailing cosmological model. Now, where do you get the idea that if the universe is eternal, that the uranium we find on Earth today would be infinitely old?

Elioenai26 · Jul 23, 2012

Eudaimonist said:
Cosmic Origins of Uranium

Not that I believe in an infinite past, but uranium isn't a finite resource. New uranium is created in supernova explosions.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I understand your point Mark, and I agree...partially.

We know that an infinite past cannot be possible because we are here today.

Scientific evidence, as well as philosophical evidence as we have seen, requires that the universe i.e. the whole of material reality have a definite beginning. The necessary elements that comprise supernovas, from which you maintain new uranium comes from, came into existence at this point. It follows logically that uranium, despite where it comes from, has not always existed.

You maintain that uranium is not a "finite" resource. I think you mean to say, rather, that the "amount" of uranium is not "finite". Therefore, "finite" in this usage is not with regards to what is temporal but what is quantitative. For if you maintain that in a temporal sense, uranium is not finite, you are actually saying that it has existed eternally or infinitely; but we know this cannot be the case.

You see, in your sentence you have used the word "inifinite" in a temporal sense i.e. infinite time in the past, and "finite" in a quantitative sense i.e. the "amount" of uranium.

When I say that there is radioactive uranium that is at the moment decaying into lead, that simply means that even though supernovas produce uranium, as you state, I take your word for it, supernovas have not always existed. You see, the universe (which consists of many exploding supernovas) has not always existed, for if it had, then there would be no exploding supernovas because according to the Law of Entropy, as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they would have all exploded and dissolved into disorder, and therefore, there would be no radioactive uranium decaying into lead. It would be all lead.

The universe cannot have a prior material cause because if it did, then it did not really begin to exist! And this position would be contradictory to all of the scientific evidence as well as philosophical evidence that has been amassed over the centuries which states that the universe began to exist at a definite point in the past.

The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

Elioenai26

Guest

fallible

Elioenai26

Guest

I believe in life before death!

Wanderer

fallible

"God"? What do you mean??

Wanderer

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Elioenai26

Guest

fallible

Elioenai26

Guest

Similar threads