What if its True?

_{Barry Arrington

August 6, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Warning: This post is intended for those who have an open mind regarding the design hypothesis. If your mind is clamped so tightly shut that you are unable to even consider alternatives to your received dogma, it is probably better for you to just move along to the echo chamber of your choice.

Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions:

1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose.

2. Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.”

From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.

Now let us set all assumptions aside. Where does this leave us? No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false. It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him. Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up. The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science. The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. When the question is put this way, most people correctly conclude that we should not place ideological blinkers on when we set out to search for truth. Therefore, even if it is true that ID is not science (and I am not saying that it is), it follows that this is a problem not with ID, but with science. And if the problem is with science, this means that the way we conceive of the scientific enterprise should be changed. In other words, if our search for truth excludes a possibly true answer, then we should re-conceive our search for truth.

Comments

Markf "This is where we fundamentally differ. Clearly people do not usually work out what they know from a system of logic." Wrong. The only way to work out what we KNOW can only come from employing the rules of right reason. If you disagree then give us one example of how you KNOW something without using one of rules of right reason set forth by KF. a] A thing is what it is (the law of identity); [b] A thing cannot at once be and not-be (the law of non-contradiction); [c] A thing cannot neither be nor not-be (the law of the excluded middle Vividvividbleau_{August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

I asked, "Define rationality and the principles which make it rational." --markf: "Believing my perceptions (but allowing that they may be wrong some of the time)." Thank you for your answer. So, by your definition, I am rational if I "believe YOUR perceptions" (allowing that they could be wrong?) Or, did you mean to say that rationality consists in everyone following his/her own perceptions? --"Believing that patterns I have observed regularly are likely to continue in the future and elsewhere (induction) but I may be wrong some of the time." Again, by your definition, I am a rational person if I believe that the patterns that YOU observe regularly are likely to continue in the future and elsewhere?, (with the provision that they might be wrong.) Once again, perhaps you didn't mean exactly what you said. Are you trying to say that rationatity consists in everyone believing the patterns he or she observes. ---"An interesting topic is the role of logic and maths. They are useful tools and a rational person will use them." Does your definition of logic and math include rules? You have already stated that reason need not have any rules, defining it in terms of your own perceptions. So, I assume that, since logic and math are important elements in rationality, you also define them in terms of your own perception and believe that you are being rational if you follow those perceptions, (allowing that they may be wrong.) Does this mean that, in order for me to apply logic and mathematics properly, I must follow your perceptions [or my perceptions] about them?StephenB_{August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

#251 Stephenb I don't have the time to write an essay on rationality. Here are a few comments. First - don't look for a neat definition of rationality. It is a word with multiple overlapping threads. Rational behaviour would include: Believing my perceptions (but allowing that they may be wrong some of the time). Believing that patterns I have observed regularly are likely to continue in the future and elsewhere (induction) but I may be wrong some of the time. An interesting topic is the role of logic and maths. They are useful tools and a rational person will use them. They will also realise that they may use them incorrectly - they may get the maths wrong or they may apply them wrongly. So rationality is a mixture of different behaviours - none of which are perfect. This is a very partial account of a complex subject ....markf_{August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

markf: "I am going to disappoint you because I don’t think rationality works that way." I already know that you don't think rationality works that way [according to the principles of right reason]. What I am asking is how you think rationality does work. What is it? What conditions must a person meet in order to be rational. Clearly, you reject our conditions. So, it is only fair that you would present your conditions. Or, is it the case that you have never even thought about the matter even though you continue to comment on it? You say you haven't abandoned rationality but you will not tell us what it is that you have not abandoned. Don't you have to know what something is before you can say that you haven't abandoned it?StephenB_{August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

PS: Plantinga's discussion is here and here. In the second of these, starting 3rd page, Plantinga raises an interesting point on the "Divine Foot in the door" fearmongering that is so characteristic of today's magisterium:
But even if it were true by definition that a scientific hypothesis could involve no reference to God, nothing of much interest would follow. The Augustines and Kuypers of this world would then be obliged to concede that they had made a mistake: but the mistake would be no more than a verbal mistake. They would have to concede that they can't properly use the term 'science' in stating their view or asking their question; they would have to use some other term, such as 'sience' (pronounced like 'science'); the definition of 'sience' results from that of 'science' by deleting from the latter the clause proscribing hypotheses that include reference to God (i.e., by removing from the definition of 'science' Ruse seems to be endorsing, the clause according to which science deals only with what is natural). Their mistake would not be in what they proposed to say, but rather in how they proposed to say it. The real question, I think, lies in a quite different direction. The term 'science' denotes an important human activity. It is difficult or impossible to give (informative) necessary and sufficient conditions for this activity; it is not possible to say just where science ends and something else (common-sense knowledge, metaphysics, epistemology, religion) begins. However, we can describe paradigms of science, and we can say informative things about what usually or often characterizes science. Thus, for example, it is characteristic of this activity to involve observation and experiments (sometimes 'thought experiments' as opposed to experiments actually carried out). And often there will be a reference to something described (or named) as a law, although it isn't part of the activity in question to insist that this 'law' is more than a regularity. It is also characteristic of such a paradigm that it makes testable predictions.42 This is a feature of a paradigmatic instance of the beast in question, but of course not necessarily a feature of every example . . . . And now the question is this. Should Christians carry on this enterprise from a Christian perspective? Is this enterprise such that religious or theological perspective is relevant to it? We won't get an answer to this question from a mere definition of the word 'science'; an answer will require familiarity with the activity, and the discernment necessary to seeing what is characteristic of it. So an answer will involve substantive questions about the nature of science, our own nature, and the nature of the world in which we live . . .
And, given what is on the table, the question even involves the credibility of the first principles of right reason.kairosfocus_{August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

F/N: On the main subject of this thread, I have continued to work on the introduction page for that beta test IOSE course. As I have done so, I have been led to again contrast the sort of recent stipulative definition of "science" as issued by the US National Academy of Sciences and similar institutions of today's reigning orthodoxies on science with the sort of definitions that commonly occurred in reference grade dictionaries over the past several decades: _________________ US NAS, 2008: >>In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it. Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing. Definition of Science The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process. [US NAS, 2008] >> Kansas State Education Standards, 2001 [the FIRST US state standards to be radicalised in line with the above agenda]: >> Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us. >> Cf two reference grade dictionaries from two sides of the Atlantic: >>science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles [["objective: external to the mind; actually existing; real"] involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [[Concise Oxford Dictionary, (Oxford: Clarendon Press) 1990 -- and yes, they used the "z." (Emphasis and definition of objectivity from the same source added.)] >> >> scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [[= "the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind"] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [[Webster's 7th Collegiate Dictionary,( Springfield, Mass: G & C Merriam), 1965. (Definition of "Knowledge" in the same dictionary inserted, and emphasis added.)] >> __________________ So, as the UD Weak Argument Correctives (so studiously avoided by too many objectors who comment here at UD) also highlight, it is quite clear that >> the attempted imposition of the "rule" of methodological naturalism as an absolute criterion of science is in fact a very recent development, and is in part motivated by conflicts over origins science. Plainly, however, issues of truth-seeking about our world and degree of warrant for conclusions cannot be settled by stipulating such an artificial constraint.>> Which brings us full circle to the Arrington-Gene-Plantinga argument in the original post, which we need to get back to (and which is now cited as below in the same introductory IOSE page): _________________ >> Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions: 1. First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose. 2. Second, let us assume [[presumably, by the "rule" of methodological naturalism] that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.” From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows: If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things . . . . No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false. It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him. Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up. The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science. The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis. [["What if it's true?" Uncommon Descent, Aug. 6, 2010. (Emphasis added.)] >> __________________ This is a very good question, and we need to ask ourselves why we are being told that in effect we should abandon the view that:
"Science, at its best, is the unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) progressive pursuit of the truth about our world, based on observation, experiment, logico-mathematical analysis and discussion among the informed."
There's plainly something a rotting in the state of Denmark . . . Okay, it's 1979 II . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

MF: Re:
The most you can claim is that everyone must be using some system of logic intuitively without realising it and this is happening from a very early age!
Children etc may not formally work out sophisticated apparati for laying out theories of logic, but they instinctively and intuitively use -- precisely the framework of laws that you wish to doubt and dismiss: 1 --> On massive and easily accessed observation, they form and hold the following stable view of reality, as can easily be seen from their actions, once they have grown enough to communicate:
[a] A thing is what it is (the law of identity); [b] A thing cannot at once be and not-be (the law of non-contradiction); [c] A thing cannot neither be nor not-be (the law of the excluded middle)
2 --> When it comes to causality, my best example is an incident that happened in a meeting I attended a few years ago here in Montserrat [as in volcano . . .] Namely: BANG! 3 --> Instantly, every head turned to see the source of the sudden noise, in fact a popped balloon from a decoration. 4 --> That is, intuitively, the general assembly of philosophically unsophisticated, common-sense thinking people worked on the premise that effects have causes. ________________ Now, in light of 237 - 8 above [and yes I know that your official stance is that you have no time to read what I post -- which, for many months has been rhetorically rather convenient to avoid dealing with a great many issues on the merits . . . ] why do you think that is? Could it be that such rules just happen to be self evident? So much so, that it is only after careful indoctrination and rhetorical manipulation in service to today's reigning orthodoxies that we are led to doubt, scant and dismiss hem as truly foundational and self-warranting once we understand them enough to see what happens if we try to deny them? Indeed, I further observe that to write and assert claims and to give your grounds for them, we may discern a puzzling little fact: you are using precisely these "grand schemes" that you are ever so suspicious of. Could you try the exercise of posting for us a response in which you do not make use of laws of logic or principles and realities of cause-effect bonds? [The former, including not distinguishing A from Not-A, not implying that your declaration of P does not embrace NOT-P, and that when you say Q is R or Q is not-R, you do not also mean Q is a shadowy blend of the two. The latter, including what happens when you press keys on your keyboard and move the mouse over and click to send. IN SHORT, JUST TO COMMUNICATE ON THIS THREAD, YOU ARE FORCED TO COMPLY WITH THE SELF-EVIDENTLY TRUTHFUL NATURE OF FIRST PRINCIPLES OF RIGHT REASON.] Finally, could you kindly acknowledge correction above of your misrepresentation of the law of cause-effect [I add the last to make it plain what I speak of]. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

#244 me: I know I am typing at the moment…. .... ....I didn’t work that out from some system of logic – I can see it and feel it” you: You are mistaken as you certainly did work that out from some system of logic. This is where we fundamentally differ. Clearly people do not usually work out what they know from a system of logic. Children and many adults have never heard of logical systems - yet they get to know things. The most you can claim is that everyone must be using some system of logic intuitively without realising it and this is happening from a very early age!markf_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

Descartes was once asked by a waiter: "Would you care for some more wine?" "I think not!" charged Descartes, and he vanished. There lies the oxymoronic "logic of irrationalism" in a nutshell. :)CannuckianYankee_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

"I guess you are looking for some system similar to Descartes. A set of rules that determine how I can get to know anything else. I am going to disappoint you because I don’t think rationality works that way." But that is exactly the way rationality works for you. There is no difference from Descartes " I think therefore I am" and your "I type therfore I know I am typing" :) Vivdvividbleau_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

“I promise you I am not meaning to deceive anyone.” I do not doubt that. “I guess you are looking for some system similar to Descartes” No I was looking for “where You start” “I don’t start anywhere “ Really?? You most certainly start somewhere, you start with your perceptions. “– but perceptions have a high priority – I know I am typing at the moment….but there is a little bit of me that is prepared to modify my view if they conflict with my perceptions (or more likely someone else’s report of their perceptions). “ – I didn’t work that out from some system of logic – I can see it and feel it” You are mistaken as you certainly did work that out from some system of logic. “Is this the kind of thing you were looking for or does it still count as ducking and covering?” Yes this is the first time you provided some semblance of an answer to tgpeelers questions. Up to this point you did indeed duck and cover but you are now out from under the desk. Vividvividbleau_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

F/N: I could not but help noticing this in 236 from MF, and hope the corrective below can help us all make progress:
But I haven’t rejected any of reason’s rules. I have just pointed out that sometimes what appears to be a self-evident rule of reason turns out not to be. I hold to the vast majority of the same rules as you. I don’t find “nothing can exist without a cause” to be one of them.
But, the correct form as stated repeatedly above and commonly -- and the distinction is vital to the question of a necessary as opposed to a contingent being -- is:
"That which begins to exist [and/or may cease from existing] has a cause."
In short, effects have causes, as was discussed earlier today from 237 on. Now, what is very, very interesting is that MF is somehow unable to accurately summarise what is actually being stated by those who he is exchanging with; on a very basic principle in philosophy. That suggests that, unfortunately, he does not correctly know the principle in question that he wishes to reject. But, if one is rejecting a strawmannish caricature [all too common on exchanges surrounding ID debates, as the Weak Argument Correctives testify], one is not even addressing the real matter on the table. Let us hope we can now address the actual matter: things which begin to exist or may go out of existence are effects and have causes. Causes that often come as clusters of factors. Where some are necessary, removal of just one is enough to block coming into existence or to cause it to cease existing. When there are sufficient causal factors, the thing WILL come into and/or be sustained in existence. (Think about the fire triangle of fuel, heat and oxidiser as a key example; per Copi's Logic.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

markf says : I don’t start anywhere." And THAT, my friends, is as self-evident a truth as was ever uttered. ;)William J. Murray_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

vivid #239 I really am short of time but this is such an aggressive comment I feel bound to respond. Also I notice you still refuse to honestly put your cards on the table ( surprise, surprise) Are you going to continue to duck and cover regarding the questions put to you by tgpeeler? See 227 I promise you I am not meaning to deceive anyone. I guess you are primarily talking about this question. “No. I am asking for what your intellectual commitment is. My intellectual commitment is to start with what cannot be rationally denied (first principles) and go from there. So where do you start?” Mark instead of telling us why cause isnt cause, that effects do not neccessarily need causes, or there is no need for a first cause. Instead answer tgepeelers question “where do YOU start”? I guess you are looking for some system similar to Descartes. A set of rules that determine how I can get to know anything else. I am going to disappoint you because I don't think rationality works that way. 3 years of philosophy and 60 years of life have taught me to be very suspicious of such grand schemes. I don't start anywhere - but perceptions have a high priority - I know I am typing at the moment - I didn't work that out from some system of logic - I can see it and feel it. Of course perceptions can be wrong, I might even be in a matrix world where they are all wrong, but it works OK for me to assume they are right the vast majority of the time. Of course, I also accept a lot of logical and mathematical statements as true - mostly the same ones as you I imagine - but there is a little bit of me that is prepared to modify my view if they conflict with my perceptions (or more likely someone else's report of their perceptions). The modification usually takes the form of refining their meaning rather than straightforward denial. So I don't see them as axiomatic. Is this the kind of thing you were looking for or does it still count as ducking and covering?markf_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

---markf: "I don’t deny the law of non-contradiction. There are many widely held beliefs that I subscribe to, including that one." There you go again. A widely held belief is not a law. The former can be shown to be false, while the latter cannot be false under any circumstances. Since you deny that it is a law, then you are denying the principle. Indeed, you have violated that same law in this correspondence by saying that you accept it {"I don't deny the law"} and that you don't accept it {It really isn't a law, but a "widely held belief"}. --"I would be wary of saying it is self-evidently true." Of course you would because you don't accept it as a law, even as you say you don't deny the law. ---"However, there are other widely held beliefs that I don’t subscribe to, including: “nothing can begin to exist without a cause.”...and I don’t think denying this leads to absurdity." Accepting the proposition that a concrete cement wall could, in principle, spontaneously appear in front a moving car on the highway without explanation, is absurd. I have asked materialists who reject the law of causality to deny the possibility of such an event. They can only say that we have never observed it so its occurrence would be a highly unlikely event. That is absurd. It can't happen--period. ---"This is at the heart of this discussion. You say various things about this principle in your comment. I won’t respond to them individually. What I cannot find is any kind of proof of this statement – just reiteration in various ways that it is absurd or irrational not to belief it." The first principles of right reason cannot be arrived by sifting through facts in evidence; they must be accepted as the starting points for all rational discourse. Evidence must be interpreted, and the principles of right reason constitute the rational standards for interpretation. We do not reason our way TO them; we reason our way FROM them. ---"Yet I do not believe it and find I can continue to live without absurdity." You can't really say that because you have no rational standard by which your absurdity could be identified. I wrote: "How can your position be “rational” when rationality is defined as being in alignment with reason’s rules—which you reject? Of course, if you have another definition of rationality, you are free to share it. Define rationality and the principles which make it rational. I will hold you to this." You have characterized my statement in this way: How can your position be “rational” when rationality is defined as being in alignment with reason’s rules—which you reject? Yet you conspicuously leave out this part: ["Of course, if you have another definition of rationality, you are free to share it. Define rationality and the principles which make it rational. I will hold you to this"] Why did you do that? ---"But I haven’t rejected any of reason’s rules. I have just pointed out that sometimes what appears to be a self-evident rule of reason turns out not to be. I hold to the vast majority of the same rules as you. I don’t find “nothing can exist without a cause” to be one of them." If you would go through the intellectual exercise required to answer my questions, the ones you studiously avoided, you would come to the end of yourself and discover your folly. You reject what you considers to be "my" non-negotiable standards for rationality, but you will not tell us about your non-negotiable standards for rationality. Think about that. You claim not to have abandoned the very same principle that you cannot or will not define. In fact, you have no non-negotiable standards to underpin the reasoning process. If a person has no standards for rationality, then that person cannot, by definition, be rational.StephenB_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Markf RE 236 "What I cannot find is any kind of proof of this statement" What would constitute proof of the statement "nothing that begins to exist has a cause" Also I notice you still refuse to honestly put your cards on the table ( surprise, surprise) Are you going to continue to duck and cover regarding the questions put to you by tgpeeler? See 227. Vividvividbleau_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

22 --> Further to this, we observe that causes often come by mechanical necessity, stochastically distributed contingency, or intentionally directed contingency. That is, law/force of nature, chance or design. As the NWE article on ID -- much more balanced than the wiki hit-piece -- exemplifies:
. . . different aspects of the same thing can be due to different causes. For example, an abandoned car will rust according to natural laws, though the actual pattern of rust may be due to chance. Yet, the car itself was designed. So regularity, chance, and design, though competing, can also be complementary.
22 --> The key to seeing he absurdity of rejecting causality is to understand the significance of necessary factors as opposed to sufficient clusters of causal factors. For, we are not just looking at the circumstances under which an effect WILL begin or be sustained, but also, the conditions under which its occurrence or continuation may be blocked. [NB: This subtlety is very important in our lived experience of reality, e.g. we fight or prevent fires by blocking out one of the three legs of the fire triangle: heat, fuel, oxidiser. So, given the dangers of fire, we cannot live as a community based on rejecting the observation that a necessary causal factor is a causal factor. if you will, no-fire may be as important an event or effect as fire.] 23 --> But, once necessary causal factors are on the table as legitimate causes, we see that claimed uncaused objects or phenomena that have a beginning or an ending, are forced to come out of nothing, nowhere, and "any-when." Not even quantum phenomena are uncaused in that sense. 24 --> So, claimed a-causal phenomena with a beginning or an end, have nowhere to happen [space is something], have no when they may begin or end, and nothing from which they may come. Such are plainly impossible. 25 --> Putting differently: we may not know the sufficient factors for something that begins somewhere, at some time, based on something, but we most likely can see necessary factors, the absence or removal of which will block or stop the phenomenon. (In physics, energy, material and force requisites are a pretty good place to start looking for such constraints.) 26 --> So, we have good reason to hold that causality is a self-evident truth. 27 --> Now, a distinction. Notice, we have said nothing about objects that do not have a beginning, i.e. which would have full eternal duration, and are necessary as opposed to contingent beings. 28 --> Where we have an observed cosmos -- the only observed cosmos, BTW -- full of contingent beings and that is itself credibly contingent per having an evident beginning, we face two opttons:
(i) an infinite regress of causes that have finite duration -- which could not arrive at the present in any finite duration [and which if material would have long since reached heat death as long as the objects interact energetically], or (ii) a root cause in a necessary being, which may be of complex unified nature. [Oneness is not necessarily a simple thing . . . ]
29 --> Of the two options, the too often conceptually unfamiliar necessary being is plainly far less difficult an explanation. 30 --> Nor can we simply posit the observed universe as a brute fact without reason, for since it has a beginning and is contingent,it has a cause. Something had to come together or if absent some 13.7 BYA, no observable universe. 31 --> Can there be more than one necessary being relevant to our universe? Arguably, no,for the very reason that we live in a unified, intelligible system of reality. Diversity there is, but in the midst of unity: we live in cosmos, not chaos, as is a foundational premise of science as well as common sense. That unity very strongly points -- notice, I am not claiming more than good warrant on best explanation -- to prior unity as its cause. 32 --> So, we have a fine tuned energy-rich, contingent matter-energy, space-time cosmos that has in it intelligence and many features that scream: design, style and beauty. 33 --> On best explanation, these point to an intelligent, powerful, knowledgeable non-material designer who is a necessary being with a sense of aesthetic style. (Not to mention putting in place a moral governor in our hearts.) _____________ Which -- as say the notorious Lewontinian a priori materialism testifies -- is most likely the real problem for many thinkers today; who prefer materialistic views that land them in even the most patent absurdities to views that point to a necessary being with attributes traditionally held to be those of the theistic God as a possible candidate to explain the world around us and our inner life as intelligent, en-conscienced persons. Rom 1 has something to say about that sort of attitude, that we may be well advised to heed: ________________ >> Rom 1:19 . . . what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. RO 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles [yesteryear, in temples, today, often in museums, magazines, textbooks and on TV] . . . . >> Or as Locke put the same thought in his Introduction to his Essay on Human Understanding, Section 5: >> Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly. >> __________________ So, let us reflect on where this thread has led us . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: In effect MF has unfortunately just implied, "if I can doubt, I can dismiss when it suits me, without further explanation." But, at the current level of this discussion, you cannot reasonably do that: every conclusion or proposal traces to a reason, which traces to premises that may require justification themselves. In effect, A requires B, and B, C, D . . . so we face (i) an infinite regress, (ii) circularity, or (iii) a point where we accept some things without further proof as such, i.e what I have elsewhere called, a faith-point. An infinite regress of demonstrations or of warrant is an absurdity for the finite and fallible such as we. Circularity presumes what it should show. So, how do we escape the one without falling into the other? ANS: by the method of comparative difficulties, across alternative worldview core commitments, on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. But, that means laying down our cards on the table. And, it means that we have to have consistent standards of warrant across diverse worldview cores; i.e. selectively hyperskeptical double-standards will be exposed as question-begging, inconsistent and agenda-serving. In this case, the main issue on the table is four-fold:
(i) Is it credible that there are first principles of right reason and of knowledge [= warranted, credibly true belief] that are true beyond reasonable dispute? (ii) In particular, would such be so by virtue of such first principles being self-evident: once we understand them based on our experience of the world as intelligent creatures, we see that they are true and must be so, on pain of absurdity. (iii) Further, is the law of non-contradiction one of these? (iv) Is the principle of causality one of these?
1 --> Yesterday, in 217, I used Royce's example "Error exists" to show that this is the first self evident truth, one that implies that truth exists, knowable truth exists and that we can make mistakes about it. 2 --> Predictably, this was ignored by parties on the other side; but it shows that SET's exist and can be identified as such to certainty -- even though we can make mistakes in our view, by misunderstanding what we are discussing. 3 --> Since the case of the plane triangle was raised, I note that its angle sum triangle axiom is true in the plane, but it was not understood 200 or so years ago, that other spaces will have different rules, so we now have non-Euclidean Geometry. 4 --> So, our ability to understand at a given time is important. However, when it comes to "error exists," and the like, that is plainly not in question. (There are no circumstances where we can shift perspective and have a world in which error exists is deniable, as we have demonstrated the reductio. 5 --> By direct contrast, in the case of geometry, the reductio was never demonstrated. And, 200 years ago, non-Euclidean forms emerged when the hoped for reductio refused to emerge. 6 --> So, we do not need to worry that "error exists" will fall apart, since we have the reductio in hand. As a direct consequence, too, we also know that truth, knowable truth exists; even, knowable to the point of certainty on pain of absurdity. 7 --> This means that radical skepticism that rejects the possibility of certainly knowable truth, falls apart. 8 --> And, to subtly or blatantly pick and choose which truths to play hypersketpical games with to suit oneself, is indefensible. 9 --> The law of non-contradiction (as well as that of identity and the excluded middle) is of course at the heart of the reductio argument: P => Q, ~Q, so ~P. But, is it self-evident? 10 --> First it is a part of our understanding of the world: the onrushing car heading towards the pedestrian crossing too fast to stop is not both there and not there in the same time and sense. Non-contradiction is a law of reality as we must live it, before it is a verbal assertion. 11 --> What happens if we try to deny it? SMASH! (We crash into reality.) 12 --> Now, there is a subtlety: the above is not a logical reductio argument, i.e by pointing to reality we do not beg the question that a formal reductio would entail. So the circularity objection is kaput. 13 --> Similarly, we now find something else: if we deny non-contradiction, we destroy our ability to communicate, as the very act of objection to LNC implicitly assumes that we know the difference between accepting LNC and objecting to it, as distinct and opposed claims that cannot both be true. 14 --> So, the objector is implicitly assuming the truth of what he would . . . DENY. Which is absurd in a different sense than modus tollens. Confusion and unavoidable self-referential inconsistency are plainly not healthy intellectual states. 15 --> So, without essaying a proof -- which again requires using LNC -- we see that to reject LNC lands us in such difficulties that we see why it is undeniably true. And, again, we have not only understood, but we have seen what happens when one tries to reject and that he difficulties are insuperable if we value the life of reason. 16 --> The wavicle objection may come up, on the premise that Quantum theory has shown that say electrons are both waves and particles, which is a contradiction. But in fact, that is not so: the electron is a unified entity, but we do not fully understand it, and we find ourselves using two different maps that model aspects of its behaviour. 17 --> The maps are not even inconsistent too, though they may seem to be,for wave groups have a localisable envelope, though its location is smeared out. 18 --> When we turn to causality [cf 164 above], the premise is that there are certain things that are effects: they begin to exist and/or may cease from existing, so are contingent on causes. That is, there are factors that by being present/absent contribute to the beginning, duration and cessation of the effect. 19 --> An apt demonstration of our experience-based understanding is a lighted match. Swipe it on the strike strip and watch it burst into flame. Heat, fuel and oxidiser are each necessary and jointly sufficient factors to trigger and sustain the flame. We see three contributing causal factors, which are individually necessary -- remove any one and the effect ceases. Also, the joint presence of the contributory factors is a sufficient cause: one the 3-factor condition is met, there WILL be an effect. 20 --> So we UNDERSTAND that we have two interacting aspects of experienced reality that have to be viewed together: causes and effects; the former being the antecedents and conditions for the latter to begin, or be sustained. 21 --> So, when we see something begin to exist, we look for factors that became sufficient for that to happen, and when something stops, we look for absences that blocked sustained existence. (This is foundational to the practice of science: we are committed to the view that things to not happen anywhere or nowhere, from nothing, for no reason. Even, in quantum mechanics, which is in material part the study of the causal factors and patterns of effects on the micro-scale.) [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{August 13, 2010
August
08
Aug
13
13
2010
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

#233 Stephenb I fear this will have to be my last comment on this. It is taking too much time. I leave it to you to have the last word. "Thus, you tacitly accept the same law of non-contradiction that you are trying to argue against. Why you would want to do that I can only imagine." I don't deny the law of non-contradiction. There are many widely held beliefs that I subscribe to, including that one. I would be wary of saying it is self-evidently true. I cannot imagine how, but things may happen which may cause me to examine in more detail what it really means. However, there are other widely held beliefs that I don't subscribe to, including: “nothing can begin to exist without a cause.” and I don't think denying this leads to absurdity. This is at the heart of this discussion. You say various things about this principle in your comment. I won't respond to them individually. What I cannot find is any kind of proof of this statement - just reiteration in various ways that it is absurd or irrational not to belief it. Yet I do not believe it and find I can continue to live without absurdity. You also write: How can your position be “rational” when rationality is defined as being in alignment with reason’s rules—which you reject? But I haven't rejected any of reason's rules. I have just pointed out that sometimes what appears to be a self-evident rule of reason turns out not to be. I hold to the vast majority of the same rules as you. I don't find "nothing can exist without a cause" to be one of them.markf_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

Vivid, I saw that an earlier time when StephenB used it and I thought then that I really liked that turn of phrase. But then it got away from me as so many things do. I'm so glad he said it again. It's on a powerpoint slide now just waiting to be unleashed... :-)tgpeeler_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Collin @ 229 "I like your 5 questions, but I would ask: can you really locate an electron? With certainty? What about consciousness?" Hey Collin, as I've said before, I am not a physicist but I read a lot about physics. Although GEM already bailed me out on that one let me add a comment or two. If one of them is incorrect then I am happy to be corrected. As I understand the uncertainty principle, it says, in layman's terms, that one cannot know both the location and velocity, or position and momentum, at the same time. So I figured that meant that if we gave up velocity we could know location. In any case, if 1 does not serve, then questions 2, 3, and 5 do. So material, for sure. Concerning consciousness {C}. I say that C is immaterial, or abstract, and therefore not locatable. Here's why. If we were merely sophisticated sensing machines, which is essentially what NDT evolutionary theory says we are, then all we could know about is what we sense. If we are body and only body (no soul or mind separate from our bodies) then the only access we have to the world is our 5 senses. Since abstract things cannot be sensed (Where is mathematics, exactly, anyway? And how much does it weigh? And is it subject to the laws of physics? And so on.) we could not know of them unless there was something more to us than our 5 senses. That something else can't be physical, or "sensable" either because we only have five and they don't give us access to the abstract world of math, symbols, laws, information, and so forth. Therefore, we must have an immaterial part of us that does recognize these things. It's an easy modus tollens argument. (P implies Q. Q is not true. Therefore P is not true.) If I only had senses to experience the physical world I could never know of the abstract world. (This is true by definition, law of identity) But I do know of the abstract world. Therefore, it is false that I only have sense experience. The further conclusion follows that there is an abstract or immaterial or "non-sensing" aspect of our being. We call this a mind or soul. This is valid. There is a necessary connection between antecedent and consequent. The ~Q premise is true. Therefore, the conclusion (~P) is NECESSARILY true. We have an immaterial or abstract part of us that we can call mind or soul. There are at least three more aspects to this and I think it is good to know these things since physicalism in philosophy of mind is probably the prevailing view in contemporary philosophy of mind and even some neuroscientists are agreeing with that. And of course, since it is FALSE. So "we" need to know how to rationally defeat the "mind = brain" nonsense. If I am only a "sensing machine" then how is it that I experience the thousands, millions, perhaps, of sense experiences all day, every day, as a unified, coherent whole? A priori, one would expect that to be chaotic. But it's not. So the existence of a mind also explains another phenomenon, our unified conscious experience. If I am only a sensing machine then how is it that I know that my car is in the driveway? I can't see my car now. I can't hear my car. Yet I know it's there and I could make my way back down the stairs to find it. But that means that I have access to stored sense experience. We say memory. But how to explain that without recourse to mind? There are many things that I know that I do not sense. Mind explains this very well. Mind mediates sense experience and gives us access to prior sense experiences. And one last thing. We all know that our senses can deceive us. Optical illusions, mirages, etc... are staples of our experience. Stand on the railroad tracks and look off in the distance. Or put a pencil in a glass of water. The tracks seemingly converge and the pencil seemingly bends but of course, neither do. If all I have is sense experience then how do I know that? How am I aware that my senses deceive me? If ALL I KNOW IS WHAT I SENSE then I "think" the tracks converge and the pencil bends because that is all I experience. Again, mind answers the question nicely. Last point on consciousness. If, as I have just argued, our minds are abstract, then something else occurs to me. It goes like this. All abstract things are indestructible. (think about it - I cannot destroy the Pythagorean theorem or E=mc^2.) My mind is abstract. Therefore, my mind (or soul) is indestructible. I think this has serious implications and I am interested in feedback on this argument since I think it gives us good reason, based on reason and evidence apart from revelation, to think that we will live after our bodies die. Thanks for the questions.tgpeeler_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

----markf: “I will risk responding to your comments although, as you know, I have found your rather ascerbic style a bit more than I can take in the past. I will try to make myself worthy of your renewed confidence. ---“My point is that we cannot easily tell a widely held belief from a self-evident truth.” I have already provided the standard. To deny a self evident truth is to fall into absurdity. You argue that I am wrong to hold that we can be certain about self evident truths. I hold that I am right. If you thought that we could both be right, you would not be challenging me. That is because, in spite of yourself, you know that we cannot both be right. Thus, you tacitly accept the same law of non-contradiction that you are trying to argue against. Why you would want to do that I can only imagine. ---“Happy to accept your version but I don’t see that it is any clearer. The second statement simply does not follow from the first. The first statement is of the form: ---“(A) An X is simply something that does Y to Z.” If X “does” something [Y] to something that already exists [Z], that is not the same thing as X bringing Z into existence. Why not just go with straight ahead prose which is just as illuminating as symbols and letters? Nothing can begin to exist without some kind of cause. ---The dictionary definitions are no less ambiguous than the word “cause”. The meaning of “cause” is a long running dispute – just read the article in the Stanford Encyclopediea of Philosophy.” Do you not appreciate the fact that all these "controversies" are possible only after assuming as fact that nothing can begin to exist without a cause? In fact, most of the said disputes about the meaning of the word causality can be reduced to two basic propositions: (1) A caused B means that A caused a change in B or (2) A caused B means that, given the occurrence of B, A is necessarily. In our present context, you may take my definition to mean (2). Then, again, that point is obvious in the statement, “nothing can begin to exist without a cause.” That brings us back to the dictionary definition which is as good as any other. A cause is simply something that brings something else about. In any case, our failure to know all the ins and outs of the relationship between the cause and the effect does not, in any way, change the fact that no effect can exist without its cause, or the fact that nothing can come into existence without a cause. Since the authors of The Stanford Encyclopedia did not make that claim, and I would be shocked if they did, it is irrelevant to our discussion. Indeed, David Hume, the father of the same hyper-skepticism which you hold so dear, stated without hesitancy that he would never say anything so ridiculous that something could come into existence without a cause. It is, to be sure, a ridiculous position. Nor would he have held that he doesn’t know the meaning of that which he declares to be absolutely necessary. Some kind of cause is necessary, whether it be a material cause, efficient cause, final cause, formal cause or some other variety. The only claim being made is that nothing can begin to exist without some kind of cause. It is the weakest kind of claim possible and its truth is so obvious that it is impossible to not know it. If that wasn't the case, the universe would be an absurd place and anyone who tried to make sense of it or talk about it or go blogging about would be absurd as well. It is absurd to try to have rational discussions in a universe where effects can occur without causes or where things can both exist and not exist at the same time. ---“But I am not saying we cannot know anything about the real world. I am only saying we don’t know anything about anything other than the universe.” Your claim refutes itself. In order to say that we cannot know anything about anything other than the universe, you would have to know something beyond the fact of the universe’s existence. ---“You can call it what you like. I call it recognising the limitations of what we know. In any case it seems to be a rational position.” How can your position be "rational" when rationality is defined as being in alignment with reason’s rules—which you reject? Of course, if you have another definition of rationality, you are free to share it. Define rationality and the principles which make it rational. I will hold you to this.StephenB_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

TGP: Some good work there. And I do not mind the "length" you are concerned about. Plato put it in Megilus' mouth in The laws Bk X: "Why should we prefer the shorter to the better?" Gkairosfocus_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

Collin: The position-momentum and energy-time uncertainty limits do smear out the location of an electron but they do not render the term meaningless. Though it is logically possible for an electron in orbit about a given H atom in the cup of water in your hand to be at the other end of the cosmos, in praxis that is not an empirically credible possibility. We still can more or less lock it down to the H-O bond involved for practical purposes. So, TGP's point still fundamentally obtains. Gkairosfocus_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler @226, thanks for the kind words. Yes, the phrase is original with me, meaning that I have never heard anyone else say it. By all means, consider it yours as well.StephenB_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler, I like your 5 questions, but I would ask: can you really locate an electron? With certainty? What about consciousness?Collin_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler, You are sooooo late to the party:) I glommed on to that line weeks ago. I even got Petrushka to concede that Stephen was correct in his assesment!! It is a great observation and one I think you are aiming at with Markf. Vivid "I love that and will shamelessly plagiarize. Note to others, you will see this phrase again. I have half a notion to write it out again here just for practice…"vividbleau_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Markf I think, actually I know, that tgpeeler has gone to the heart of the matter. How many times has Stephenb, KF, and others have presented rational and irrefutable arguments against irrationality only to see the irrationalists defend their irrationalism by using the very principles that they are arguing against!!! Ok so is this back and forth between you , Stephen and peeler going to end any differently? No. But peeler has gotten to the heart of the matter here "No. I am asking for what your intellectual commitment is. My intellectual commitment is to start with what cannot be rationally denied (first principles) and go from there. So where do you start?" Mark instead of telling us why cause isnt cause, that effects do not neccessarily need causes, or there is no need for a first cause. Instead answer tgepeelers question "where do YOU start"? Furthermore here "You haven’t committed to HOW you know anything. You have only made a statement that you don’t know everything." How do YOU know anything which would include YOU knowing that you do not know everything. Will you answer these questions? If not let everyone know now and quit wasting bandwidth. Respectfully Vividvividbleau_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 221 I wish I had seen your reply before I wrote mine. Then mine could have been a lot shorter. You said "reason’s rules inform evidence; evidence does not inform reason’s rules" I love that and will shamelessly plagiarize. Note to others, you will see this phrase again. I have half a notion to write it out again here just for practice... :-)tgpeeler_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

markf @ 215 “If I understand you, asking for intellectual commitment amounts to asking people what they assume to be necessarily true?” No. I am asking for what your intellectual commitment is. My intellectual commitment is to start with what cannot be rationally denied (first principles) and go from there. So where do you start? “The trouble about this is what we thought was necessarily true may turn out not to be – uncertainty goes very deep. 200 years ago many people thought that it was necessarily true that: The sum of the angles of a triangle are 180 degrees” This statement is irrelevant to my argument. I addressed this already. We can only have certainty in the realm of the abstract. In the realm of experience and space/time we only have probability. “Nothing can be in two places at once.” This is also irrelevant – the truths of the physical world, as I have noted in prior posts, are INDUCTIVE. They are not certain, no matter how intuitive they may seem to be. QM has amply demonstrated this. So did GR, come to think of it. “Time is the same for everything material in the universe” Previously answered. “All of these are now either known to be false under certain conditions.” OK, so what??? They are not RELEVANT to my argument. You see that, right? “These are all crisply defined statements. If you then go on to rather vaguer statements such as: If something is uncaused it cannot have a beginning.” This is not a “vague” statement, it is definitional. By applying the law of non-contradiction to the law of identity we can figure other things out. Let’s try it again. If something exists and is uncaused, that means what? It means that it MUST HAVE always existed. Because if it is UNCAUSED, and uncaused means didn’t have a cause, then that thing always existed, because if it didn’t always exist, then something MUST HAVE caused it. Something, anything that is CAUSED didn’t exist before. Because if it always existed then it’s UNCAUSED. It’s part of what caused means, to begin to exist. So if something exists and is uncaused that means that it always existed, and if it always existed, it never began. If it never began yet exists, that means it’s eternal. Eternal and infinite are just other words/terms that also mean the same thing. Uncaused. Do you see how this works? “If something has no beginning it must be immaterial.” “No beginning” is just another way to describe uncaused which is another way to describe infinite. Infinite means without number, unbounded, “greater” than any finite number. If something is material, it can be counted. If it can be counted, it is finite. If it is finite, it can’t also be infinite. The law of non-contradiction applies, as it always does. This is how I know that nothing that is material can be uncaused, or infinite, or eternal. “If the first cause is immaterial it must be God” No, it must not be God, but God is the word we typically use to describe an infinite, uncaused, eternal, transcendent Being. You don’t want to call Him God, be my guest. I’m talking about necessary characteristics here, not His Name. Which is, not oddly, I AM. I leave it to you to make the connection between the (Biblical) Name of God (and Jesus) and the First Principles of Reason and the subsequent conclusions that must be drawn. “when even the meaning of “cause” is open to many interpretations, much less “immaterial” and “God” – then you really are making some rather bold committments/assumptions.” So what are the many interpretations of cause? There are many usages for the word cause but all of them have this one thing in common. All causes precede their effects. This is true by definition. Even Hume understood this and he didn’t really understand much, as it turns out. I have elsewhere defined “material” and “immaterial” in the most generous terms possible so there is not really any room for misunderstanding there. You tell me what something is and I’ll tell you instantly if it’s material or not by answering these five questions. 1. Can it be located or is it extended in space and time? (Here is the answer key: yes = material; no = immaterial or abstract) 2. Does it have mass? 3. Does it obey the laws of physics? 4. Can it be converted to energy? 5. Can it heat or move matter? Let’s take a couple of examples to illustrate. (We need only one of five answers to be “yes” to make something material but we need all five to be “no” to make something immaterial.) Photons – yes to 1 so we need go no further. Material Electrons – yes to 1 so we need go no further. Material Mathematics. No to all. Immaterial Laws of physics. No to all. Immaterial This is a really easy system. “Isn’t it reasonable to say that we know a bit about birth of the universe and outside of that we know nothing and may never know? That would be my intellectual committment with respect to first causes.” No. It is not reasonable. It is as far away from reasonable as it’s possible to be. You haven’t committed to HOW you know anything. You have only made a statement that you don’t know everything. That’s hardly unusual. None of us do. It’s intimately related to the problem of not being God. Does this help? It occurs to me that you have probably ingested much “post-modern” nonsense about truth during your formal education so you may even be predisposed to resist the very idea of absolute truth, and reason as a way to that truth, apart from its application to the present discussion. If so, please rethink all of that.tgpeeler_{August 12, 2010
August
08
Aug
12
12
2010
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply