The "Cellar Argument" For God

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#61  Postby ray » Mar 10, 2010 1:09 pm

Mojzu wrote:

ray wrote:

Which is why you need to get out of dearly beloved cellor, and go and apply your chosen scientific method.



If I apply my chosen methods, and still come up blank am I doing something wrong?


Its not methods. Its method.

You can't go wrong if you apply science here as you would for any other discovery.

Its is only when you do not really apply the scientific method that you get the wrong results.

From your words, I can see that you dont WANT to apply the rigorous method:

found no reason why I should...

I utterly disagree with from a moral and ethical standpoint...


.
User avatar
ray
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 482

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#62  Postby ray » Mar 10, 2010 1:10 pm

UnderConstruction wrote:

Considering your "out of the cellar" nonsense is clearly nothing but a metaphor for this,
we can therefore safely consider it to be irrelevant.

Science is at it's best when the practitioner is free of presuppositions, yet you wish for us to impose them upon ourselves.

So if you have such evidence, lay it on the table.


Its laid out in all its glory. But you just dont want to come to the table.

.
User avatar
ray
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 482

Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#63  Postby z8000783 » Mar 10, 2010 1:17 pm

ray wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

ray wrote:

Exactly.

Which is why you need to get out of dearly beloved cellor, and go and apply your chosen scientific method.



Chosen scientific method? There's a choice? Please do elucidate, I have been labouring all this time under the illusion that there is 1 scientific method, and lots of pseudoscience that completely fails to establish robust self-checking mechanisms.


One man's science can be another man's junk.

I don't quite follow this, do you have an example? I presume you are talking about more than simply ignoring evidence as if it wasn't there and calling it Junk.

John
I don’t simply believe in miracles - I rely on them
z8000783
 
Name: WTF
Posts: 9333
Age: 67
Male

Country: Greece
Greece (gr)
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#64  Postby UnderConstruction » Mar 10, 2010 1:37 pm

ray wrote:
UnderConstruction wrote:

Considering your "out of the cellar" nonsense is clearly nothing but a metaphor for this,
we can therefore safely consider it to be irrelevant.

Science is at it's best when the practitioner is free of presuppositions, yet you wish for us to impose them upon ourselves.

So if you have such evidence, lay it on the table.


Its laid out in all its glory. But you just dont want to come to the table.

.



OK, I'm confused. Am I supposed to be climbing to the roof or coming to the table? Should I perhaps come out of my shell while I am at it? Would it help it I also reach for the stars? Can you say anything in this thread without hiding behind pointless metaphors?

Here's the thing, you clearly do not understand the scientific method in the slightest. Science works best when the practitioner does not force themselves into a position of presupposition, whatever metaphor you wish to use to describe this. Furthermore, scientific results can be shared with people, regardless of their presuppositions. If you are saying we have to impose these presuppositions before we can see the results, you are not doing science.

So if you claim that any part of your argument is scientific, how about you behave as if it is? How about you present your findings? Write them up. Tell us your starting hypothesis and how it was tested. Explain the methods you used and the results you received. Explain your conclusions. It is not necessary to "climb to the roof" to read your argument, much as you might try to convince us that we must do this to see it as valid. So far you have not even presented your argument, just a load of metaphor laden assertions.
"Origins from God/Genesis are secular actually as we see it." - Robert Byers
User avatar
UnderConstruction
 
Posts: 1297
Age: 41
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#65  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2010 1:38 pm

ray wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

ray wrote:

Exactly.

Which is why you need to get out of dearly beloved cellor, and go and apply your chosen scientific method.



Chosen scientific method? There's a choice? Please do elucidate, I have been labouring all this time under the illusion that there is 1 scientific method, and lots of pseudoscience that completely fails to establish robust self-checking mechanisms.


One man's science can be another man's junk.

That is why I said apply the one you trust all the time.

.


No, you just evaded a direct question.

What 'choice' of scientific methods?

Please elucidate in your next post, not just add more obfuscation.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27886
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#66  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2010 1:39 pm

ray wrote:
UnderConstruction wrote:

Considering your "out of the cellar" nonsense is clearly nothing but a metaphor for this,
we can therefore safely consider it to be irrelevant.

Science is at it's best when the practitioner is free of presuppositions, yet you wish for us to impose them upon ourselves.

So if you have such evidence, lay it on the table.


Its laid out in all its glory. But you just dont want to come to the table.

.



Evasion again.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27886
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#67  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2010 1:41 pm

ray wrote:
Mojzu wrote:

ray wrote:

Which is why you need to get out of dearly beloved cellor, and go and apply your chosen scientific method.



If I apply my chosen methods, and still come up blank am I doing something wrong?


Its not methods. Its method.

You can't go wrong if you apply science here as you would for any other discovery.

Its is only when you do not really apply the scientific method that you get the wrong results.

From your words, I can see that you dont WANT to apply the rigorous method:

found no reason why I should...

I utterly disagree with from a moral and ethical standpoint...


.



This coming from someone who actively decided to genuflect to the most scientifically ignorant organised religious ideology still extant in the world.

Remind us again of where you used the scientific method to establish the veracity of the claim of Allah's existence.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27886
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#68  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 10, 2010 1:43 pm

ray wrote:
Scientists who are not keen often fail to see, or evaluate correctly, the evidence right in front of them.


Ray, stop pretending to have a clue about the scientific method.

Your position is not drawn from anything like the rigorousness of the scientific method, it is based on ignorance of reality and whim.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27886
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#69  Postby Mojzu » Mar 10, 2010 2:51 pm

ray wrote:
Mojzu wrote:

ray wrote:

Which is why you need to get out of dearly beloved cellor, and go and apply your chosen scientific method.



If I apply my chosen methods, and still come up blank am I doing something wrong?


Its not methods. Its method.

You can't go wrong if you apply science here as you would for any other discovery.

Its is only when you do not really apply the scientific method that you get the wrong results.

From your words, I can see that you dont WANT to apply the rigorous method:

found no reason why I should...

I utterly disagree with from a moral and ethical standpoint...


.


So because I have not come to your desired conclusions, I'm doing it wrong?

I think you don't understand how the scientific method works...
"You're offended? So fucking what!" - Stephen Fry
User avatar
Mojzu
 
Posts: 2724

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#70  Postby katja z » Mar 10, 2010 3:51 pm

z8000783 wrote:
ray wrote:One man's science can be another man's junk.

I don't quite follow this, do you have an example? I presume you are talking about more than simply ignoring evidence as if it wasn't there and calling it Junk.

John

He just likes to use proverb-like formulas that he thinks sound wise. Have a look at this about women (from another thread) and you'll see what I mean.

Edit: Oh, I've just realized you are following that other thread. Still, it doesn't hurt to point out the peculiar style of argumentation ...
User avatar
katja z
RS Donator
 
Posts: 5353
Age: 40

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#71  Postby ray » Mar 10, 2010 4:45 pm

Thanks katja z.

;)
User avatar
ray
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 482

Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#72  Postby dyet-b » Mar 10, 2010 6:18 pm

ray wrote:
dyet-b wrote:

As much as you would not like to have evidence for the hole in your tooth,
the persistent toothache is there. Not wanting to feel the toothache doesn't make it go away.



Painful tooth is no evidence of a hole. If you want to see a hole, you will have to look at it.

You are technically right that a tooth-ache is not necessarily evidence only for a hole.
But you are not disputing my point that hating to have evidence for something has nothing to do with what the evidence implies. So do you agree then that hating the evidence doesn't invalidate it?

So according to you, on one hand emotions ("really loving to see Him") are required to see the evidence,
and on the other hand critical inquiry without emotions is the way to gather the evidence?

So are emotions required, or not?


Scientists who are not keen often fail to see, or evaluate correctly, the evidence right in front of them.

The same is valid for people who think they stand on roofs and are looking at stars...
And you evaded the question: are emotions required or counterproductive in inquiry?



"star haters dont discover the Real Gem in the sky"

So some people who don't like celestial bodies of a certain category don't notice your asserted god?

What do celestial bodies have to do with your god?



Please get some sunshine. Basement darkness is known to cause debasement in logic.

Evasion noted. I take that you cannot answer the simple question of what stars have to do with your deity.

And even if I went up to the roof, you would still need to explain how do I detect ljhgiafvyfjtbgn.



Bingo.



Well, if you agree that you would need to explain how to detect ljhgiafvyfjtbgn, then start explaining!


But you are still in the cellor. How can I tell you how to set up the Telescope.

Try to remember your "if" ?

I assumed that your "bingo" means that you agree that you need to explain what ljhgiafvyfjtbgn is. Or isn't that what your "bingo" should be interpreted? What does is mean?




Since you haven't pointed out what ljhgiafvyfjtbgn is, we cannot talk about sightings.
First you would need to tell what ljhgiafvyfjtbgn is, and point it out. Then it will become a sigting.


You brought ljhgiafvyfjtbgn up. Have you forgotten what you were talking about?/

You brought up your deity, and you haven't told us what it is and how to differentiate from anything else. Are you going to ever start giving any evidence that it exists at all?

So when are you going to point out ljhgiafvyfjtbgn?


The moment you reach the roof with your telescope. No tripod necessary.

Even in the meantime you can start sharing with us what should we be looking for. You should be able to explain what ljhgiafvyfjtbgn looks like to you. You can do that now, no need to wait. Are you saying that your deity is visible with a telescope?

You haven't managed to show that there is a staircase or elevator.
That would be the evidence you still haven't given. Any time you are ready...


For disable people, staircase is useless.

I am ready to bring you up myself, even if I have to carry you on my own shoulders.

That's kind of you! The easiest way of doing that is to start describing what your deity looks like and how can it be distinguished from stars.

Do you mean that me rejecting logical fallacies and bad analogies means that I don't want to see evidence?

How did you deduce that?


When good cops want to see the evidence they dont blame bad cops for bad investigation. They just get up and look at it for themselves.

Have you done any investigation? What evidence did you find?

Justice is done only by the Just.

Who are "Just"?

Also, you haven't answered whether your deity is one of the stars?
User avatar
dyet-b
 
Posts: 21

Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#73  Postby IIzO » Mar 10, 2010 6:42 pm

God is hidden , therefore you don't look hard enough , therefore God exists ?
Between what i think , what i want to say ,what i believe i say ,what i say , what you want to hear , what you hear ,what you understand...there are lots of possibilities that we might have some problem communicating.But let's try anyway.
Bernard Werber
User avatar
IIzO
 
Posts: 2182

Country: La France , evidement.
France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#74  Postby IIzO » Mar 10, 2010 7:08 pm

God is perfectly good ,therefore god wont let us know of him , therefore God exists ?
Between what i think , what i want to say ,what i believe i say ,what i say , what you want to hear , what you hear ,what you understand...there are lots of possibilities that we might have some problem communicating.But let's try anyway.
Bernard Werber
User avatar
IIzO
 
Posts: 2182

Country: La France , evidement.
France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#75  Postby dyet-b » Mar 10, 2010 10:15 pm

RichieDickins wrote:
dyet-b wrote:
And I would argue that God cannot be hidden from disinterested observers forever unless there is no divine judgement. But according to the Christian and Muslim mythologies, everybody will be judged one day, and that would be a very tangible evidence even for the unbelievers and the disinterested observers.
Also, this God is not only hiding, but deliberately makes it harder for us to find evidence even for the interested observers. We do know that people are prone to fantasies, wishful thinking and delusions, and God so far made it impossible for outside observers to distinguish delusion from believing in him.


Yes assuming Christian or Muslim theism, that's true. I don't find the evidence to be so ambiguous though.

, there is no reason to suspect that such a being would limit himself to or even take part in spectator evidence (which doesn't require any commitment or participation on the part of the observer).

Say what? Don't you think critical inquiry doesn't require commitment or participation?


I mean participation in a volitional sense. I'll let Moser explain it, he does a better job than I: see page 61 http://books.google.com/books?id=JZCepAbVk7kC&pg=PA92&dq=volitional+paul+moser&cd=1#v=onepage&q=volitional%20paul%20moser&f=false

English is not my native tongue, and I don't understand what "volitional evidence" is. Volitional is "an act of making a choice or decision; also : a choice or decision made; 2 : the power of choosing or determining: will". I don't get what "will" or "making a decision" has to do with evidence.
Perhaps you could give a short description and an example?

Wouldn't this perfectly moral being not want every single one of his/her/its creation to make it to heaven? Isn't that what is the best for all?
Would a perfect being set up a rigged test the result of which determines eternal consequences? Would a perfect being make it beneficial for us to use our critical faculties for every question around us except for the one are of his/her/its existence?


As to the first two questions, I'm sure that's right. As to the third one, you seem to be talking about Calvinist Christian theism, according to which there is no free will. That's not my view at all, nor is it compatible with God's being morally perfect (because it makes him the author of evil).

I'm not a philosopher, but I it seems to me that in a world where everybody's every action is known in advance by somebody, everybody is precluded from freely exercising their will. That implies that they could choose something else than what is known to God. How does that work?

And to the forth, it's not as if receiving volitional evidence

Sorry, please expand a bit what volitional evidence is. Thanks.

doesn't make use of our critical faculties, only a different way of using them;

What is a "different way" of using our critical faculties? I don't think there are different ways of using them, only certain areas of life where we choose not to use them.

and it may just be that it's not logically possible for God's purpose in that regard to be achieved through the same kind of evidence that we attain in other inquiries.


This would include our coming to know him freely (because moral perfection requires respect for freedom), and freely consenting to align our behavior in accordance with his will (because he wills only what is good).

I'm confused... Are you saying that this perfect being doesn't know in advance what every person will choose? That would mean the this being is not omniscient, and thus is not perfect.
Or are you saying that there is no free will? In that case, how can anyone freely consent to aligning behaviours with his will?


Neither ;) . God is omniscient, and we have free will (God has full knowledge of all counter-factual truths).

I again have a language problem: what is "counter-factual truth"?
Does God know what I will choose before even the choice is presented to me? How can there be free will then?

Spectator evidence would not accomplish these ends, and it would (as Kierkegaard suggests) establish an improper relationship between us, and create tension between God's moral perfection and our freedom.


"Improper relationship"? How do you know what a perfect being with its perfect and infinite wisdom and knowledge considers proper, if you don't have perfect and infinite wisdom and knowledge? Why should I take your word for what is a "proper" relationship with this deity?


Yes, we don't have perfect knowledge, so when we ask whether God exists, we have to clarify the terms we're using and what we mean by them, and then ask what follows regarding the sort of purposes such a God would have - that's the only way we can proceed. God as a being worthy of worship must be morally perfect, and as such he must be perfectly loving, willing what is best for everyone. Moral perfection would require the accomplishing of that end while respecting our freedom, which would mean without coersion.

Yes, but if you define this God to be perfect than we by definition cannot know what purpose such a God would have. We are by no means perfect. Do you mean that we can use our far-from-perfect faculties to guess the purpose of a perfect entity? How is it possible to know anything about such an entity?

See pages 32, 43, 61 of Elusive God, they're all on the google book preview.

I think the tension between this alleged god's alleged moral perfection and our alleged freedom is that if God is perfect then we don't have freedom. Not my fault...
What should those believers do, who claim that there is tangible evidence for their belief? They are interested, and they believe. Is their relationship with God "improper"?


God's perfection doesn't entail that we don't have freedom - why would it? Well if someone only knows about God but doesn't know God volitionally,

Please explain what this "volitional knowledge" means. thanks.

then that would be an improper relationship yes. Propositional knowledge is not the point, "even the demons believe, and they shudder" etc.. There may be tangible evidence (I think there is, I don't share Moser's dislike of natural theology), but it's not sufficient.

"There is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't" (Pascal)

Firstly, I find it insulting to compare disbelief to diminished capacity. :naughty: :nono:

:cry: that's understandable, but it goes both ways - somebody's gotta be wrong, and whoever is is "blind" to the truth of the matter.

Of course it goes both ways! My problem is that Pascal doesn't say that. He says that the light is for those who want to believe.

Secondly, this analogy seems to go completely against your previous point. It says that there is enough evidence for us to believe, but you seem to have previously argued that there should be no such evidence. If it were to support your previous point, it should say that there is no light (as an outside aid to discover "spectator evidence"), but if you honestly wanted to believe, then some non-spectator light would be given to you, which cannot be perceived by others, because then it would count as "spectator evidence".


No, there's enough evidence, but it's of the volitional morally-authoritative sort. And I said that if God exists, we shouldn't expect evidence of the spectator sort

But earlier you seemed to agree that there will be robust evidence available even for the staunchest unbelievers when the judgement comes. If we are not to expect any evidence, then there can be no divine judgement.

, but there may in fact be such evidence to a limited degree; theism may in fact entail at least some such evidence, such as the existence of the universe, with conditions necessary for life to exist, and so on.

The existence of the universe is not an evidence of a deity: it's evidence for the existence of the universe. Similarly, the conditions necessary for life are not an evidence for a deity.
I would very much like to see what evidence you mean by "and so on"!

but more or less, the P(spectator evidence/theism) = P(~spectator evidence/theism)

Please explain.

As I've suggested before, I think one could understand it as more of a testable claim than an argument.

Testable claim? Isn't that "spectator evidence"?

No I mean testable for you. If there is any morally authoritative evidence to be found, you can find out whether there is such a call: 93

Morally authoritative evidence? What is that?

It's the claim that through honest inquiry you will find evidence that God exists.

And if you don't find evidence, you were not honest enough. As I said: blaming the victim. Very nice, especially bearing in mind the alleged eternal consequences. Moral perfection... yeah, right...


The victim? Whether or not there are any eternal consequences is an entirely separate question from whether God exists. I may be a Christian myself, but as far as this sort of inquiry goes, religious doctrines are not part of it.

Please define "volitional, morally authoritative evidence". Can you give an example? Has such evidence been discovered? Is it robust enough?

Answered above I think, and in the cited pages

which requires an honest intention

Again, blaming the victim... :roll:

This would be akin to saying that in order to see whether it's cloudy outside, one has to open the blinds and look outside his window; people that don't see the clouds outside must not have opened their blinds. Ah, but that's blaming the victim!

I think it's more like "I will send you to hell for eternity, and it's your fault because you didn't see the evidence that I never showed you".

to participation on the part of the inquirer, as opposed to the reproducible, empirical sort which would afford belief alone without requiring any meaningful commitment or investment in the question, and thus without any transformation of the will. The reason for this is explained above.

Isn't belief the point?
Also, how can a transformation of the will take place if this perfect God knows in advance what my will is before I know it?
Are you saying that one has to be committed to participation in the inquiry, or in the belief? Belief is supposed to be the result of the inquiry. Otherwise it is just rationalising a belief. That would be rather silly.

I think you skipped the question I bolded. Can you please answer it now?

Why is it important to have a "meaningful" commitment or investment in the question? You are blaming the victim again, btw.


Because the knowledge in question is relational, it's an I/Thou sort. Say you knew all the third-person propositional knowledge about somebody, but never met them personally. Then you meet them, spend time with them and get to know them personally, from a second-person perspective; knowledge would have be gained there, but it would not be of a propositional sort, it would be relational. Eleonore Stump explains this in the beginning of this lecture: http://70.182.176.35/Media.aspx#/v/620

I'm not certain that I follow your train of thought.
What does knowing somebody face-to-face has to do with "meaningful commitment"?
Meeting someone face-to-face (second-person perspective) is spectator evidence, unless one just fantasises about knowing that person. Like knowing an imaginary friend.
I listened to the first 15 minutes, and but she didn't explain how to differentiate a story about reality from something made up.
User avatar
dyet-b
 
Posts: 21

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#76  Postby Onyx8 » Mar 11, 2010 6:57 am

ray wrote:
Onyx8 wrote:

The 'celler [sic] argument for God' is essentially:

"I can see God and if you were me you could too".

Is that about it?


No. Its not about me.

The Cellor Argument is about equipment and position.


You gettin' fresh with me fella?
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#77  Postby Onyx8 » Mar 11, 2010 6:58 am

ray wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

ray wrote:

Exactly.

Which is why you need to get out of dearly beloved cellor, and go and apply your chosen scientific method.



Chosen scientific method? There's a choice? Please do elucidate, I have been labouring all this time under the illusion that there is 1 scientific method, and lots of pseudoscience that completely fails to establish robust self-checking mechanisms.


One man's science can be another man's junk.

That is why I said apply the one you trust all the time.

.



You gettin' fresh with him too?
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#78  Postby Onyx8 » Mar 11, 2010 7:01 am

You know ray, this habit of yours of using these one-liner metaphors is extremely counter-productive to rational discourse, so what are you doing here? Why don't you drop the abstruse "I am wiser than you" crap, say what you mean so that all can understand it. Want to give that a try?
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#79  Postby z8000783 » Mar 11, 2010 8:50 am

Onyx8 wrote:You know ray, this habit of yours of using these one-liner metaphors is extremely counter-productive to rational discourse, so what are you doing here? Why don't you drop the abstruse "I am wiser than you" crap, say what you mean so that all can understand it. Want to give that a try?

He still hasn't explained what this little snippet actually means -
One man's science can be another man's junk.

The point about metaphors is that they are supposed to relate to something otherwise they are simply Off Topic.

John
I don’t simply believe in miracles - I rely on them
z8000783
 
Name: WTF
Posts: 9333
Age: 67
Male

Country: Greece
Greece (gr)
Print view this post

Re: The "Celler Argument" For God

#80  Postby Fallible » Mar 12, 2010 1:18 pm

Bookmarking.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest