Is the Galton Board evidence for intelligent design of the universe?

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 16, 2023

Intelligent Design, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Ken Francis writes: “Proof that God placed order out of chaos in the universe. Each ball has a 50-50 chance of bouncing right or left off of each peg as it traverses the board, but every time the result is a bell curve. More proof of Intelligent Design.”

The comments are interesting.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments

That doesn’t mean there is a purpose for it, other than to just be what it is
one of the more stupid statements ever on UD. Something created the universe. That something must have immense intelligence and power. To then say it was done so incredibly precisely for no purpose is unbelievably illogical. As always the lack of argument against ID is always the most interesting question. Thread after thread, it’s always the same. What better proof for ID.jerry_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

The Darwinian materialist is also forced to believe that all his perceptions of reality are also illusory, and/or 'constructed representations',
“the illusion that our brains evolved to have, a very compelling and persistent illusion – namely that the reality we perceive is real, rather than a constructed representation.” – Steven Novella – academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine https://mindmatters.ai/2019/07/tales-of-the-mind-a-neurologist-encounters-the-house-of-mirrors/ The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/
The Darwinian materialist, since he has no real time experimental evidence substantiating any of his grandiose claims for Darwinian evolution, is also forced to make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection,
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530 The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
And the Darwinian materialist is forced to make up these illusory “just so stories” so as to ‘explain away’ the overwhelming 'appearance' of design, (which is to say he is forced to make up these 'just-so stories' so as to explain away the overwhelming 'illusion' of design), that he himself is seeing in life
"Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning." - Richard Dawkins - "The Blind Watchmaker" - 1986 - page 21 “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case.” – Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit (1988) ,,, "living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed" Richard C. Lewontin - Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book 'Evolution' (September 1978)
The Darwinian materialist also must make up illusory meaning and purposes for his life since the hopelessness inherent in atheistic nihilism is simply too much for anyone to bear,
"Life is never made unbearable by circumstances, but only by lack of meaning and purpose." - Viktor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning - 1946 - Austrian psychiatrist, Auschwitz survivor How I’m Planning to Celebrate Darwin Day - Tom Gilson - February 11, 2020 Excerpt: Making Humanity Meaningless If that looks meaningless at first glance, it remains so under full-length analysis. To be human (under naturalistic or undirected evolution) is to have meaningless origins, and those meaningless origins mean we live in a meaningless world. Many staunch Darwinists will grant there’s no meaning behind human existence, but still insist, “I create meaning for myself.” But that hardly makes sense. More likely, it’s meaninglessness creating the illusion of meaning.,,, https://stream.org/how-planning-celebrate-darwin-day/ Study: Atheists Find Meaning In Life By Inventing Fairy Tales - Richard Weikart March 29, 2018 Excerpt: when religious people say non-religious people have no basis for finding meaning in life, and when non-religious people object, saying they do indeed find meaning in life, they are not talking about the same thing. If one can find meaning in life by creating one’s own meaning, then one is only “finding” the product of one’s own imagination. One has complete freedom to invent whatever meaning one wants. This makes “meaning” on par with myths and fairy tales. It may make the non-religious person feel good, but it has no objective existence. http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/29/study-atheists-find-meaning-life-inventing-fairy-tales/
The Darwinian materialist is also forced to hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God Who is the source for all real and objective moral standards and truths,
"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life "Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea." - William Provine - as stated in a 1994 debate with Phil Johnson at Stanford University: Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos - video - 4:36 mark https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276
The Darwinian materialist is also forced to hold, since beauty itself cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, that beauty itself must be illusory. In fact, no less than Charles Darwin himself stated that "beauty in the eyes of man",, "would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”
“The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.” (Charles Darwin - 1859, p. 199)
Thus in conclusion, although the Darwinist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic and/or materialistic explanations, (i.e. methodological naturalism), over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinian materialists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview that turns out to be more antagonistic towards modern science, indeed which is more antagonistic towards reality itself, than the presumption of Darwinian materialism, (i.e. methodological naturalism), has turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Bottom line, without God nothing turns out to be truly real in the atheist’s worldview. Not even the atheist himself turns out to be real in his materialistic worldview. Much less are beauty, meaning, and purposes for his life to be considered real in his naturalistic worldview. To call such a worldview 'impoverished' is an understatement. It is a vile, putrid, and rotting philosophy which can't even support rational thought in the first place, and which robs man of anything, and everything, that might give any semblance of real meaning and purpose to his life. Thanks be to God that it is an utterly false worldview.
John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

Moreover, the Darwinian materialist, besides being forced to claim that he himself is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’, is also forced to claim that he, as a neuronal illusion, is simultaneously having the illusion of free will.
The Illusion of Free Will - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.,,," - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/ Free Will is a Necessary Fiction (They Claim) Covers writers who suppose that free will is a necessary fiction: that although we don’t have such free will, we should still encourage a belief in it. Saul Smilansky,,, John Horgan,,, Matt Ridley, Genome,,, Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works,,, https://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/free-will/writers-on-the-self-and-free-will/free-will-is-a-necessary-fiction Free Will: Weighing Truth and Experience - Do our beliefs matter? - Mar 22, 2012 Excerpt: If we acknowledge just how much we don’t know about the conscious mind, perhaps we would be a bit more humble. We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-brain-social-mind/201203/free-will-weighing-truth-and-experience Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor
As is made abundantly clear by the fact that Darwinists are forced to hold that they are 'neuronal illusions' who are simultaneously having the illusion of free will, rationality itself is completely lost in their denial of free will.
Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html Of note: Martin Cothran is author of several textbooks on traditional logic https://www.amazon.com/Martin-Cothran/e/B00J249LUA/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1
In short, if we do not have free will in some real and meaningful since, then rationality itself collapses, (and since science itself depends on rationality, then science itself also collapses along with it)
(1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. - per Box UD
And as VL herself is giving evidence to in this very thread, the Darwinian materialist is also forced to believe that all his beliefs about reality are unreliable, untrustworthy, and/or are illusory. Or as VL put it, she holds all her beliefs to be 'tentative'.
"Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." - Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html
bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

Well KF, for me, VL's direct contradiction in logic is simply a small microcosm of the catastrophic epistemological failure that permeates the materialistic metaphysics of Darwinian evolution at large. (a materialistic metaphysics which dominates our colleges and public schools today) In short, if God is not held to be real and true, (i.e. 'certain'), then nothing else can be held to real and true, (i.e. certain') for the Darwinian materialist. First off, if God does not really exist as a real person, but is merely an illusion as Darwinian materialists hold, then we ourselves do not really exist as real persons, but our sense of self is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ that is somehow, inexplicably, generated by, and/or emergent from, the unconscious material particles of the brain.
Sam Harris: “The self is an illusion.” – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1) https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness – Steven Pinker – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II The Illusion Of Control Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. http://www.academia.edu/2794859/The_Brain_The_Mystery_of_Consciousness At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3 “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,, – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10
The claim that consciousness, i.e. our sense of self, is a 'neuronal illusion', since it denies the objective reality of 'self', is, in a word, insane. As brain surgeon, and professor of brain surgery, Michael Egnor pointed out, "Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure."
Atheist Philosopher Thinks “We Never Have Direct Access To Our Thoughts” Michael Egnor – July 20, 2016 Excerpt: Materialist theories of the mind border on the insane. If a man walks into a doctor’s office and says “I never have direct access to my thoughts and I have no first person point of view,” the man will be referred to a psychiatrist and may be involuntarily hospitalized until it is established that he is not a danger to himself or others. If the same guy walks into the philosophy department at Duke University, he gets tenure. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/atheist_philoso/
Moreover, the claim that consciousness, i.e. our sense of self, is a 'neuronal illusion', since it denies the objective reality of 'self', is also self refuting in the most fundamental way possible. This is because it claims that the one thing by which we judge everything else to either be real of illusory, i.e. consciousness, is itself an illusion. As David Bentley Hart states in the following article, “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.”
The Illusionist – Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness. – 2017 Excerpt: “Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist
bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

BA77, you are right. On topics like this, self referentiality is almost impossible to avoid, which is part of why core hard questions are hard. What we need to do, is to try to avoid incoherence by making assertions that when referred to ourselves, undercut the point we were trying to make. I think a safe position is, error exists is undeniably true and self evident. This first establishes that some things are knowable as certainly true, instantly discrediting all sorts of relativistic notions. However, the truth is also humbling and we need first principles of reasoning to guard and guide us, being open to change our views on adequate evidence. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

PM1, of course, as I noted earlier to you, social practices are too often driven by power not warrant and are inadequate. As for the challenges of evolutionary materialistic scientism, a first expansion of the relevant sense of naturalism, there are already enough examples on the table to establish that there are serious difficulties for grounding enough of responsible, rational freedom for minds and the arguments and conclusions of minds to be credible. In particular, Slager has outlined enough to give pause, such that there are sufficient cat out of bag remarks by spokesmen to give pause. In particular, we have reason to know that a computational substrate is a signal processing entity constrained by GIGO, with no higher credibility than the quality of its programming; such do not have rational, responsible freedom. Where, as we are on topics with a lot of self referentiality, it is clear that some pretty self undermining remarks have been put on the table, as cited. Those need to be answered and the relativism of largely power driven social and institutional processes undermines such an appeal. Scientism's implication that science dominates or monopolises knowledge, in particular, is both self referentially incoherent [this is an epistemological claim] and fails to reckon adequately with power issues in relevant institutions. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

VL stated, “My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another,” And then later VL stated “I am certain about certain things that are logically true. ” So I asked, "And you do not see this as a contradiction in your thinking?" FP throws his two cents in and states, "There is no contradiction here." Sorry FP, but you and VL can't have it both ways. You can't hold a belief to be 'certain' and to also be 'tentative'. For crying out loud, the definition of tentative is "NOT certain'.
cer·tain adjective known for sure; established beyond doubt. ten·ta·tive adjective not certain or fixed; provisional.
In other words, despite FP's denial to the contrary, VL's claims are a direct contradiction in logic.bornagain77_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT}

JVL, at this point it is pretty clear that you have inadvertently underscored the force of my point, imagining you were refuting what I had highlighted. It is quite clear that Carroll put up a claimed "Quantum Eternity Theorem," I think c 2014 where I have a clip of some of his argument on such matters in 166 above, and that theorems are fairly commonplace in physics, contrary to your earlier assertion. As I recall for the moment, Bell Theorem in Quantum Physics, Louville;s theorem [in statistical mechanics topics], the Carnot theorem on maximum efficiency of a heat engine, the rather useful Buckingham Pi theorem for dimensional analysis of physical relationships, even the BVG theorem, roughly, on a finite past to expanding cosmos Carroll tried to counter. (A list by Wikipedia here will help clarify that in physics there are results that are indeed described as theorems; so, no the term theorem is not exclusively used by Mathematicians.) It is clear I responded to talking points above regarding a claimed eternal past result, for cause. Aron Wall, already linked, makes a different response. It is clear that Fourier analysis uses time domain sinusoids that are strictly past-eternal as a matter of Math, and that this similar case underscores a familiar enough matter where we need to anchor physics to the empirical and recognise that mathematical model worlds are not themselves physical, where at cosmological levels, thermodynamics is king. Indeed, on spectrum analysers, we have two in our heads, in our inner ears, using an array of vibrating hairs that respond to specific frequencies across the spectrum 20 - 20 kHz, both for sustained notes and transients. Yes, as I noted from the beginning, on finding contradictions, set theory was axiomatised, leading to ZFC; a point where you inadvertently underscore an earlier response I made BTW. The particular illustration has contradictions lurking on the horns of a dilemma, which justifies my point that it was self contradictory, paradox here is as I responded, strictly distinct from the contradictions proper, but going down the horns of the dilemma surfaces them. I simply note on the substantial point and the balance on merits. Which is, despite Carroll's prestige [something appealed to above by another objector], that there is no established physics that leads to a mathematically necessary past eternal physical world and that we need to retain empirical and thermodynamic control on claims. KFkairosfocus_{January 26, 2023
January
01
Jan
26
26
2023
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

The moon “First of all, about 4.5 billion years ago the planet that eventually became Earth was very different from what it is now. To be accurate, it wasn’t yet Earth. Most of us haven’t heard about this because it was only recently understood. But the planet that became Earth was actually smaller than Earth. So it was a kind of proto-Earth that scientists usually refer to as Theia. But one day a few million years after the formation of this proto-Earth, something happened: A Mars-sized object just happened to hit Theia at just the perfect angle and at just the perfect speed. The object that collided with the proto-Earth also had precisely the right composition. This all happened very shortly after the formation of our solar system, and shortly after the formation of the proto-Earth as part of the solar system. But we know that if it had not happened—and happened precisely as it happened in every detail—we would not be here. It is another inescapably amazing “coincidence” to consider. So what happened? As we have said it was the mysteriously perfect collision of two planet-sized spheres hurtling through infinity for millions of years “became Earth had been different in size or composition, we would not be here. This is not science fiction. It is what science has rather recently come to understand. It seems miraculous, no matter what one’s view of the situation is. But science is not in the business of proclaiming anything miraculous, even if something seems miraculous. Science is simply in the business of finding out what happened. But science now knows enough to say that if any details of what happened had been even slightly different, we could not be here now. So what did happen? Many things. First, as a result of this inconceivably powerful collision, the super thick atmosphere of the proto-Earth—Theia—exploded off into outer space, never to return. So the new planet—what we today call home—suddenly had a much, much thinner atmosphere. We know that the atmosphere on the proto-Earth was forty to a hundred times denser than the atmosphere afterward, and breathing it would have been like trying to breathe sand. So because of this extremely perfect collision, our planet instantly had a new atmosphere, one thin enough for sunlight to penetrate so that plants could grow, and[…]” “lourish on the newly formed Earth. To be clear, the size of our moon is outrageously large when compared to other moons in our solar system. But anything at all smaller would not have been sufficient to stabilize the wobble of our axis, as it has done ever since and is doing now. But science tells us that the moon’s stabilization of our axis is another unavoidable prerequisite for an environment where life could exist. For example, it enables us to have just the right seasonal variation, with seasons mild enough that the temperature does not fluctuate wildly, which would make life impossible. So this perfect collision just happened to happen, and the size of Earth and the size of the moon and the atmosphere and the axis of Earth were all magically and perfectly and suddenly established, so that we could eventually live here as we now do. But because it is only recently that science has settled on all of this, most of us simply haven’t heard about it. Now that we do know it, however, we can add this breathtakingly perfect collision to the list of what appear to be outrageous coincidences” Excerpt From Is Atheism Dead? Eric Metaxas https://books.apple.com/us/book/is-atheism-dead/id1572686313 This material may be protected by copyright. https://jesusquestion.com/miracle-moon-eric-metaxas-book-miracles/ Vividvividbleau_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT}

“It is wrong to consider it a relevant criticism of a non-ultimatist that their belief in non-ultimaticity is not ultimate.” Huh? “No. The universe is fine-tuned for more than life. It’s fine-tuned for the existence of physics and chemistry and the resulting universe full of stars and galaxies and all the rest that is out there. “ Of course it’s fine tuned for the existence of physics, chemistry, stars and galaxies otherwise we would not have life. “Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being? There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp. Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?” Eric Metaxas Vividvividbleau_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

What does that have to do with ultimate purpose?Viola Lee_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

VL@ I take it that you also tentatively believe that there is no ultimate purpose for human beings. Would a near-death experience count as evidence for you? If it is all untrue, then a lot of cardiac patients are liars ... From WikI:
Pim van Lommel (cardiologist) was one of the first researchers to bring the study of NDEs into the area of Hospital Medicine. In 1988 he launched a prospective study that spanned 10 Dutch hospitals. 344 survivors of cardiac arrest were included in the study.[7][34][79] 62 patients (18%) reported NDE. 41 of these patients (12%) described a core experience. The aim of the study was to investigate the cause of the experience, and assess variables connected to frequency, depth, and content.[7] Prospective studies were also taking place in the U.S. Schwaninger and colleagues[80] collaborated with Barnes-Jewish Hospital, where they studied cardiac arrest patients over a three-year period (April 1991 – February 1994). Only a minority of the patients survived, and from this group 30 patients were interviewable. Of these 30 patients 23% reported an NDE, while 13% reported an NDE during "a prior life-threatening illness". In a prospective study from 2001, conducted at Southampton General Hospital, Parnia and colleagues found that 11.1% of 63 cardiac-arrest survivors reported memories of their unconscious period. Several of these memories included NDE-features.[5]Note c Greyson[35] conducted a 30-month survey of patients admitted to the cardiac inpatient service of the University of Virginia Hospital. He found that NDEs were reported by 10% of patients with cardiac arrest and 1% of other cardiac patients. Up to 2005, 95% of world cultures have been documented making some mention of NDEs.[37] In all close to 3500 individual cases between 1975 and 2005 had been reviewed in one or another study. And all these studies were carried out by some 55 researchers or teams of researchers.[37]
Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

No. The universe is fine-tuned for more than life. It's fine-tuned for the existence of physics and chemistry and the resulting universe full of stars and galaxies and all the rest that is out there. That doesn't mean there is a purpose for it, other than to just be what it is. I have no idea what would count to me as evidence for ultimate purpose. I can't imagine having access to whatever might be the source of a purpose for the universe even if there is one.Viola Lee_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

VL @
As far as I can tell, the universe has no ultimate purpose.
Ori: May I ask why you believe that there is likely no ultimate purpose?
I see no evidence.
If it turns out that the universe is fine-tuned for life, would that count as evidence for an ultimate purpose? If not, what would count as evidence?Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ Thx! The following quote made me laugh uncontrollably. Not sure why :)
A statement that there is no truth, if true, is false.
Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 writes:
pm “My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another,” and yet,, “I am certain about certain things that are logically true. ” And you do not see this as a contradiction in your thinking?
There is no contradiction here.Ford Prefect_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

I see no evidence.Viola Lee_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

VL@
I am certain about certain things that are logically true. I am certain that a bachelor is an unmarried man because that is the definition of bachelor. I am certain about the facts of math because those are part of a logical system where the definitions and rules for manipulation are clearly defined. (...) And so on about all sorts of empirical facts. As far as I can tell, the universe has no ultimate purpose. I’m not certain of that, but it is the belief I’ve chosen as the most reasonable to be a part of my philosophy.
Now I understand you better. You have, like most of us, several certain basic beliefs. Your non-ultimatism applies mainly to metaphysical beliefs. And here you hold tentatively the belief that the universe (life?) has no ultimate purpose. May I ask why you believe that there is likely no ultimate purpose?Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Origenes, you may also appreciate this,
The Self Evident — A Reminder – John C. Wright – 2019 From time to time it is useful for sane men in an insane world to remind themselves of basic truths. The first truth is that truth is true. A statement that there is no truth, if true, is false. We know this truth is basic because without it, no question can be answered, not even the question of whether or not truth is true. Truth is a subtle and complex topic, but what we mean by the word can be said in a short sentence using words of one syllable: Truth is when one says ‘it is’, and it is as one says. The second conclusion springs immediately from the first. We know that truth is true because to say truth is untrue is illogical. A statement that truth is true is a self-evident statement, hence a true one. A statement that truth is untrue is a self-contradiction, hence false. http://www.scifiwright.com/2019/10/the-self-evident/ Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God – Peter Kreeft 11. The Argument from Truth This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine. 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. https://peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11
Verses:
John 18:37-38 “Then You are a king!” Pilate said. “You say that I am a king,” Jesus answered. “For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.” “What is truth?” Pilate asked.,,, John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
bornagain77_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

"My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another,” and yet,, "I am certain about certain things that are logically true. " And you do not see this as a contradiction in your thinking?bornagain77_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

As usual, I get the feeling that you folks are not really trying to understand another’s point of view, but here is a short reply: 1. I am certain about certain things that are logically true. I am certain that a bachelor is an unmarried man because that is the definition of bachelor. I am certain about the facts of math because those are part of a logical system where the definitions and rules for manipulation are clearly defined. 2. I have no reasonable doubts that there is a tree in my front yard. I trust my senses in regards to everyday perception. I could be wrong (brain in a vat) but I see no reason to even consider that, and there are many ways that I can test my belief, so that falls in the category of “virtually certain with no reason to spend any time of energy doubting, even though in theory I could be wrong.” I am virtually certain the earth is approximately spherical, although (like those people who doubt we went to the moon or people who think the earth is flat) I could be wrong, I suppose, but the chanvces are way to small to think about. I’m fairly certain the earth’s core is molten lead, but that is not from direct observation by anyone, so it has a slightly greater chance of being wrong, buyt in my opinion not much. And so on about all sorts of empirical facts. Given that the topic of the discussion is about metaphysical matters such as ultimate purposes and goals I shouldn’t even have to go over all this. Origenes, you write, “But you tell me that you don’t claim that non-ultimatism is True, but, instead “likely true”, and that I should not criticize it. Ok.” This is why these discussions are so frustrating and unfruitful. I didn’t say you couldn’t criticize my positions. I said something much more specific. I said, “You may consider us wrong (which you do), but you can’t criticize our beliefs solely on the fact that they contradict your ideas of how things are.... This does not make non-ultimaticism internally or self-referentially contradictory, …”, to which you replied “I flatter myself believing that I criticize ideas if I spot internal incoherence.” Well, I’ve explained the mistake I think you’re making, but I’m not going to spend just saying stuff again. And last, you write, “No? Are you sure? Or do you hold that as a tentative belief?” I’ve said over and over that I present my beliefs according to what I think that is best supported by evidence and logic. I could be wrong, and people might change my minds. As far as I can tell, the universe has no ultimate purpose. I’m not certain of that, but it is the belief I’ve chosen as the most reasonable to be a part of my philosophy. At some point, people have to make the choices that seem best to fit the situation, and that's mine. That doesn't mean I can't search, and find, lots of things that are solidly true about the world, and others that are less certain, and so on. Arrggghhh. This is useless, and I can’t figure out why I keep commenting. I will really try hard to go away now.Viola Lee_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

BA77 @288 That is a great quote and absolutely infuriating. Unlike most of you, I am not trained in mercifulness, so I will tell you like it is. What Pearcey succinctly describes is the rise of the numskulls. And in the meantime, they have turned society as a whole, the education system included, into an insane asylum run by patients.Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Ba77, I went to Catholic high school. The nuns told us that if we thought this was hard, just wait till you get to college. I got to college, learned I could set my own schedule and also learned that college had a lot of hedonism in the background thanks to the sexual revolution. You may find the following to be of interest: https://cardinalnewmansociety.org/land-o-lakes-statement-caused-devastation-50-years/relatd_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

"My belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another," So, in other words, your feet are planted firmly in midair? :) Unbeknownst to you, you are yet another victim of Darwin's corrosive effect on education
How Darwinism Dumbs Us Down – Nancy Pearcey Excerpt: The gist of my talk was that Darwinism undercuts the very possibility of rational truth–an argument that seemed unsettling to atheist students who had organized a group specifically to promote rational thought! To understand how Darwinism undercuts the very concept of rationality, we can think back to the late nineteenth century when the theory first arrived on American shores. Almost immediately, it was welcomed by a group of thinkers who began to work out its implications far beyond science. They realized that Darwinism implies a broader philosophy of naturalism (i.e., that nature is all that exists, and that natural causes are adequate to explain all phenomena). Thus they began applying a naturalistic worldview across the board–in philosophy, psychology, the law, education, and the arts. At the foundation of these efforts, however, was a naturalistic approach to knowledge itself (epistemology). The logic went like this: If humans are products of Darwinian natural selection, that obviously includes the human brain–which in turn means all our beliefs and values are products of evolutionary forces: Ideas arise in the human brain by chance, just like Darwin’s chance variations in nature; and the ones that stick around to become firm beliefs and convictions are those that give an advantage in the struggle for survival. This view of knowledge came to be called pragmatism (truth is what works) or instrumentalism (ideas are merely tools for survival). Darwinian Logic One of the leading pragmatists was John Dewey, who had a greater influence on educational theory in America than anyone else in the 20th century. Dewey rejected the idea that there is a transcendent element in human nature, typically defined in terms of mind or soul or spirit, capable of knowing a transcendent truth or moral order. Instead he treated humans as mere organisms adapting to challenges in the environment. In his educational theory, learning is just another form of adaptation–a kind of mental natural selection. Ideas evolve as tools for survival, no different from the evolution of the lion’s teeth or the eagle’s claws. In a famous essay called “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” Dewey said Darwinism leads to a “new logic to apply to mind and morals and life.” In this new evolutionary logic, ideas are not judged by a transcendent standard of Truth, but by how they work in getting us what we want. Ideas do not “reflect reality” but only serve human interests. To emphasize how revolutionary this was, up until this time the dominant theory of knowledge or epistemology was based on the biblical doctrine of the image of God. Confidence in the reliability of human knowledge derived from the conviction that finite human reason reflects (to some degree at least) an infinite divine Reason. Since the same God who created the universe also created our minds, we can be confident that our mental capacities reflect the structure of the universe. In The Mind of God and the Works of Man, Edward Craig shows that even as Western thinkers began to move away from orthodox Christian theology, in their philosophy most of them still retained the conception that our minds reflect an Absolute Mind as the basis for trust in human cognition. The pragmatists were among the first, however, to face squarely the implications of naturalistic evolution. If evolutionary forces produced the mind, they said, then all are beliefs and convictions are nothing but mental survival strategies, to be judged in terms of their practical success in human conduct. William James liked to say that truth is the “cash value” of an idea: If it pays off, then we call it true. Pragmatism Today This Darwinian logic continues to shape American thought more than we might imagine. ,,,, If James’s religious pragmatism has become virtually the American approach to spirituality today, then Dewey’s pragmatism has become the preferred approach to education. Virtually across the curriculum–from math class to moral education–teachers are trained to be nondirective “facilitators,” presenting students with problems and allowing them to work out their own pragmatic strategies for solving them. Of course, good teachers have always taught students to think for themselves. But today’s nondirective methodologies go far beyond that. They springboard from a Darwinian epistemology that denies the very existence of any objective or transcendent truth. Take, for example, “constructivism,” a popular trend in education today. Few realize that it is based on the idea that truth is nothing more than a social construction for solving problems. A leading theorist of constructivism, Ernst von Glasersfeld at the University of Georgia, is forthright about its Darwinian roots. “The function of cognition is adaptive in the biological sense,” he writes. “This means that ‘to know’ is not to possess ‘true representations’ of reality, but rather to possess ways and means of acting and thinking that allow one to attain the goals one happens to have chosen.” In short, a Darwinian epistemology implies that ideas are merely tools for meeting human goals. Postmodern Campuses These results of pragmatism are quite postmodern, so it comes as no surprise to learn that the prominent postmodernist Richard Rorty calls himself a neo-pragmatism…. I once presented this progression from Darwinism to postmodern pragmatism at a Christian college, when a man in the audience raised his hand: “I have only one question. These guys who think all our ideas and beliefs evolved . . . do they think their own ideas evolved?” The audience broke into delighted applause, because of course he had captured the key fallacy of the Darwinian approach to knowledge. If all ideas are products of evolution, and thus not really true but only useful for survival, then evolution itself is not true either–and why should the rest of us pay any attention to it? Indeed, the theory undercuts itself. For if evolution is true, then it is not true, but only useful. This kind of internal contradiction is fatal, for a theory that asserts something and denies it at the same time is simply nonsense. In short, naturalistic evolution is self-refuting. https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/how-darwinism-dumbs-us-down/ Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl https://www.amazon.com/Relativism-Feet-Firmly-Planted-Mid-Air/dp/0801058066
bornagain77_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee What does the fact that some beliefs are more likely true than others tell you? Can you really doubt each and every belief you have? Can you doubt that you exist? Can you doubt 2 + 2 = 4? Can you doubt that you sometimes have doubts? Can you doubt that error exists? Is it really possible for you to hold that all beliefs "are tentative to some degree"?Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Ba77 at 223, They act as if they don't see the problem. ,,, “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” save, of course, for the belief that “all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another”. I watched a "comedian" tell his audience to question everything. OK, let's start with you and what you just said.relatd_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

No, BA. That's a stupid and/or intellectually dishonest rejoinder, one and obviously, if you paid any attention to what I was saying, you would know that is not something I am saying or claiming. My belief that "all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another” is a tentative belief: just as with all my beliefs, to some degree or another, one I think is much more likely to be true than not, taking into account all the evidence that we have available to us, and thus a belief that I choose to hold.Viola Lee_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

VL @
Ori: Naturalists are not OK with that, because (according to Slagle) that would mean that no one can hold naturalism to be a true belief.
As PM wrote at 182, “We can call that an external criticism: criticizing naturalism by standards that the naturalist need not accept.”
What is PM1 trying to convey with the term ‘external criticism’? Is being 'external' perhaps a convenient reason to discard certain criticism? If not, PM1 is, of course, free to argue that naturalism allows for teleological processes that have the ultimate goal or purpose of believing truth, or that truth does not matter, or whatever he wants. As an aside, your claim that “if naturalism is true, there are no ultimate goals or purposes, period”, is not supportive of such an effort.
A non-ultimatist (to coin a phrase: either a naturalist or a non-naturalist such as myself who doesn’t believe that these ultimate goals, purposes, and truths exist) would say that all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another. We are not claiming that it is True (in the ultimate sense) that there are no ultimate goals etc., but instead that we think it much more likely true than not, and so we adopt that as a chosen philosophical position, taking into account all the evidence that we have available to us. It is wrong to consider it a relevant criticism of a non-ultimatist that their belief in non-ultimaticity is not ultimate.
Are you absolutely sure that it is wrong for me to do so? Or do you hold that as a tentative belief? I would say that a claim like “truth does not exist” is self-defeating. The same with “all our beliefs are tentative.” BTW do you hold the belief that 2 + 2 = 4 ‘tentatively’? And do you hold ‘tentatively’ the belief that you exist? Is that a computer screen in front of you? But you tell me that you don’t claim that non-ultimatism is True, but, instead "likely true", and that I should not criticize it. Ok.
You may consider us wrong (which you do), but you can’t criticize our beliefs solely on the fact that they contradict your ideas of how things are.
Is that what I’m doing? I flatter myself believing that I criticize ideas if I spot internal incoherence.
This does not make non-ultimaticism internally or self-referentially contradictory, ...
No? Are you sure? Or do you hold that as a tentative belief?
… it just makes it in opposition to a different perspective that thinks these ultimates exist.
That too.Origenes_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

,,, "all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another" save, of course, for the belief that "all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another".bornagain77_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

o Origenes at 202: When I wrote, “Well, if naturalism is true, there are no ultimate goals or purposes, period. I think naturalists are OK with proximate goals and purposes that arise from our existence as organisms.”, Origenes replied,
Naturalists are not OK with that, because (according to Slagle) that would mean that no one can hold naturalism to be a true belief.
As PM wrote at 182, “We can call that an external criticism: criticizing naturalism by standards that the naturalist need not accept.” A non-ultimatist (to coin a phrase: either a naturalist or a non-naturalist such as myself who doesn’t believe that these ultimate goals, purposes, and truths exist) would say that all our beliefs are tentative to some degree or another. We are not claiming that it is True (in the ultimate sense) that there are no ultimate goals etc., but instead that we think it much more likely true than not, and so we adopt that as a chosen philosophical position, taking into account all the evidence that we have available to us. It is wrong to consider it a relevant criticism of a non-ultimatist that their belief in non-ultimaticity is not ultimate. You may consider us wrong (which you do), but you can’t criticize our beliefs solely on the fact that they contradict your ideas of how things are. This does not make non-ultimaticism internally or self-referentially contradictory, it just makes it in opposition to a different perspective that thinks these ultimates exist.Viola Lee_{January 25, 2023
January
01
Jan
25
25
2023
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply