Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

No true Free Will exists if Ex Nihilo creation is true

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Your argument is basically, God made you into a robot and programmed you so you have no free will.

    It is a circular argument.
    No. The argument that God created us out of nothing AND created us with free will BECAUSE God created us ex nihilo with free will is a circular argument. My argument goes far beyond that. I have elaborated on the other thread for Kind Debater, to see if someone is finally ready to address the issues.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    God doesn't determine or create every characteristic of our personality.
    Alright then. Where does every characteristic of our personality come from, if not from God, in the Ex Nihilo framework? Please explain for the audience.

    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    He created us with free will, we observe it in ourselves and others.
    There is your circular reasoning again.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    It is not a matter of unilateral control.
    So, your god is not in full control of existence. Therefore he is not "all powerful" because something else can thwart his will.

    An eternal entity of free will has characteristics that God chooses not to violate (otherwise God would be a bully/oppressor).
    Not if his way is better. It is irresponsible to not stop something you are capable of stopping. (This is the same argument you are trying to use against us)

    In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.
    With full consent of Elohim, right? Is he even capable of saying no?


    That is like an atheist saying to a Christian that God had a moral obligation to never allow Hitler to be born.
    If God is solely benevolent, then yes. It is a valid charge.


    I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?
    Absolutely. If He is "all powerful", then his will can not be thwarted. By allowing Lucifer to fall, and take 1/3 of his children with him, Elohim's will was thwarted. Therefore, your god is not all powerful. If he knew Lucifer would fall, and take 1/3 of them down with him, and had the power to stop it, he should have. Or does your god think that sacrificing 1/3 to give the other 2/3 a shot is an acceptable loss? He COULD have chosen to not allow Lucifer to be organized, and that could have saved at least SOME of the 1/3. So, by your same "Could have" and "Should have" criteria for rejecting ex nihilo, you should reject Elohim organizing spirits he knew would fall and be destroyed.


    Surely you can see the difference between
    1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
    2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination
    But that's not the real story. It should be:

    1) God, who ultimately controls which spirits get organized, allows those spirits to be organized, despite knowing they will be destroyed
    2) God created the creature from His imagination, despite knowing they will be destroyed.

    In both your belief and mine, God is ultimately responsible for creating creatures he knows will be destroyed. You can wiggle and squirm all you want, but either your god is "all powerful" or he is not.

    [quote]First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will.[quote]

    Which eliminates the possibility of "omnipotent".

    Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin
    Then the principles themselves are more powerful than God, thus eliminating the possibility of "omnipotent".


    If it is so "rudimentary", then you should have no problem addressing the issues Bill.

    -7up
    Again, now you have to fight for Griffin without knowing the thought behind his arguments. It's a fool's endeavor and a waste of time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    I did. You have not yet been able to respond. All you have done in your response is demonstrate that you have not understood the arguments. You have not even addressed this first one, which I posted near the beginning.

    1) God knows what characteristics of an individual would lead to certain "choices" in certain circumstances. God is creating every single characteristic (every aspect) of a person's being, purely from God's own mind. Therefore, the person who God creates will do exactly what God created that individual to do, in every circumstance.

    -7up
    That is crap. I did respond to your argument. Your response was to watch your videos.

    Your argument is basically, God made you into a robot and programmed you so you have no free will.

    It is a circular argument. God doesn't determine or create every characteristic of our personality. He doesn't make us make decisions. You basically are arguing "God didn't give you free will therefore you don't have free will"

    He created us with free will, we observe it in ourselves and others. If you want to prove that just because he created out of nothing we don't have free will, you have to prove that with a logical argument. Just asserting it is not an argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    That's not what I am talking about. I mean the transition from intelligence to spirit. Who controls that transition?
    It is not a matter of unilateral control. An eternal entity of free will has characteristics that God chooses not to violate (otherwise God would be a bully/oppressor). In LDS theology, the physical existence is a parallel of the spiritual existence. We believe that our spirits chose to enter physical bodies, and therefore, the possibility exists that the eternal intelligence had some kind of will to enter a spiritual body.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Unless Elohim is thoroughly ignorant on the events yet to occur, he has the moral obligation to not allow them to be organized.
    That is like an atheist saying to a Christian that God had a moral obligation to never allow Hitler to be born.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    To which Elohim seems ignorant. Did Elohim not know before organizing him as a spirit that Lucifer would rebel?
    I do not pretend to know the nature of God's foreknowledge in such matters. But to make things interesting, let's say that God knows for sure that Lucifer would rebel, would God be oppressive enough to deny Lucifer's intelligence entrance into spirituality?

    Surely you can see the difference between
    1) God allowing an eternal free agent, who has certain characteristics, to make choices
    2) God creating the creature, and every single characteristic that the creature possesses, from God's own imagination

    First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will. Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. - Griffin

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I'd rather debate you than Mr. Griffin, who is not available for further comment... much of what he said was extremely incomplete or unnecessarily rudimentary in nature, anyway.
    If it is so "rudimentary", then you should have no problem addressing the issues Bill.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Present your arguments in THIS thread, ....
    I did. You have not yet been able to respond. All you have done in your response is demonstrate that you have not understood the arguments. You have not even addressed this first one, which I posted near the beginning.

    1) God knows what characteristics of an individual would lead to certain "choices" in certain circumstances. God is creating every single characteristic (every aspect) of a person's being, purely from God's own mind. Therefore, the person who God creates will do exactly what God created that individual to do, in every circumstance.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    Complete unilateral control, in the sense that God has in Ex Nihilo creation? No. He does not. I would say that God COULD control these intelligences. In other words, God has the power to force them, but that would be oppressive.
    That's not what I am talking about. I mean the transition from intelligence to spirit. Who controls that transition? Do they do it of their own volition, or does Elohim, through his power, do the organizing? Or do they simply tell Elohim that they want to be spirits and he makes them spirits? Either way, unless they tell Elohim what to do, he is in control of who does and doesn't get organized into a spirit... Unless Elohim is thoroughly ignorant on the events yet to occur, he has the moral obligation to not allow them to be organized.


    It isn't only a matter of God choosing. We are talking about eternal entities of free-will. They have a choice in any action as well.
    To which Elohim seems ignorant. Did Elohim not know before organizing him as a spirit that Lucifer would rebel?


    God did not "allow that agent to come into existence." The agent already existed.
    But not as a spirit baby. They need to be organized before they can affect creation, yes?

    Let's see how David Ray Griffin addresses the issue:

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    I find the following 7-step statement to be most helpful in eliminating ambiguities, thereby allowing one to see just which premise is being rejected by the various theodicies.

    1. To be God, a being must be omnipotent (with an “omnipotent being” defined as one whose power to bring about what it wills is essentially unlimited––except [perhaps] by logical impossibilities).
    2. An omnipotent being could unilaterally bring about a world devoid of genuine evil (with “genuine evil” defined as anything that makes the world worse than it could have otherwise been).
    3. To be God, a being must be morally perfect.
    4. A morally perfect being would want to bring about a world devoid of genuine evil.
    5. If there is a God, there would be no genuine evil.
    6. But there is genuine evil in the world.
    7. Therefore there is no God.
    ...

    ....

    I now turn to the solution I favor, to which the rejection of creatio ex nihilo is fundamental. In fact, the problem of evil is uniquely a problem for those theistic positions that hold the doctrine of omnipotence implied by the doctrine of creation out of nothing. For, the problem of evil can be stated as a syllogism entailing the non-existence of deity only if deity is defined as omnipotent in the sense of having no essential limitations upon the exercise of its will. And it is precisely omnipotence in this sense that the speculative hypothesis of creatio ex nihilo is designed to support.

    Two issues are involved. First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will. Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. But if God created this world out of absolutely nothing, then the beings of this world are absolutely dependent upon God. Any power they have is not at all inherent, but is totally a gift of God, and as such can be overridden (or, which amounts to the same thing, withdrawn) at any time. And if there has not always been a multiplicity of finite actualities, it does not make sense to think of any uncreated and hence necessary principles as to how the actualities of the world can be ordered. Any such principles would be purely contingent ones, created along with the actualities whose behavior they describe, and hence alterable at (divine) will.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    -7up
    I'd rather debate you than Mr. Griffin, who is not available for further comment... much of what he said was extremely incomplete or unnecessarily rudimentary in nature, anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    I understand the terms Sparko.

    If you were to have actually watched my video series, you will see that I specified quite clearly that the form of pantheism that is implied by Ex Nihilo is in fact, panENtheism.

    That video is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro

    -7up
    Will you stop trying to market your videos? It basically boils down to argument by weblink and pure laziness on your part to do the work in this thread.

    Present your arguments in THIS thread, and forget your videos. Argument by weblink is not allowed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    Yes. It is logically impossible. Watch the videos (1a and 1b) and pay attention closely. So far, your commentary has demonstrated that you have not grasped the depth being addressed here.

    Let it simmer.

    -7up
    I watched the videos. You are wrong. Everything you have argued so far is basically, as Bill said, whining. Your reasoning is not logical. There is no reason God can't create people with free will. Despite you repeating yourself and wanting people to watch your dumb videos which basically just repeat the same whining.

    Lay it out for us in a logical statement with no LDS preconceptions. Go for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    If anything christian theology is not pantheistic, but more panentheistic. At least try to understand the terms you toss about.

    I understand the terms Sparko.

    If you were to have actually watched my video series, you will see that I specified quite clearly that the form of pantheism that is implied by Ex Nihilo is in fact, panENtheism.

    That video is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduIGkSy1Ro

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    How does this differ from your god? Does yours not have the control over which intelligences to organize into spirit children?
    Complete unilateral control, in the sense that God has in Ex Nihilo creation? No. He does not. I would say that God COULD control these intelligences. In other words, God has the power to force them, but that would be oppressive.



    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    If he could choose Christ first, why could he not choose only the ones who would not rebel, like Lucifer did?
    It isn't only a matter of God choosing. We are talking about eternal entities of free-will. They have a choice in any action as well.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    If he knows what will happen (through omniscience), and allows that agent to come into existence, why is he not just as guilty as what you accuse ours of?
    God did not "allow that agent to come into existence." The agent already existed.

    Let's see how David Ray Griffin addresses the issue:

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    I find the following 7-step statement to be most helpful in eliminating ambiguities, thereby allowing one to see just which premise is being rejected by the various theodicies.

    1. To be God, a being must be omnipotent (with an “omnipotent being” defined as one whose power to bring about what it wills is essentially unlimited––except [perhaps] by logical impossibilities).
    2. An omnipotent being could unilaterally bring about a world devoid of genuine evil (with “genuine evil” defined as anything that makes the world worse than it could have otherwise been).
    3. To be God, a being must be morally perfect.
    4. A morally perfect being would want to bring about a world devoid of genuine evil.
    5. If there is a God, there would be no genuine evil.
    6. But there is genuine evil in the world.
    7. Therefore there is no God.
    ...

    ....

    I now turn to the solution I favor, to which the rejection of creatio ex nihilo is fundamental. In fact, the problem of evil is uniquely a problem for those theistic positions that hold the doctrine of omnipotence implied by the doctrine of creation out of nothing. For, the problem of evil can be stated as a syllogism entailing the non-existence of deity only if deity is defined as omnipotent in the sense of having no essential limitations upon the exercise of its will. And it is precisely omnipotence in this sense that the speculative hypothesis of creatio ex nihilo is designed to support.

    Two issues are involved. First, if God in creating our world necessarily worked with some pre-existent actualities, these actualities might well have some power of their own with which they could partially thwart the divine will. Second, there might be some eternal, uncreated, necessary principles (beyond purely logical truths) about the way these actualities can be ordered which limit the sorts of situations that are really possible. But if God created this world out of absolutely nothing, then the beings of this world are absolutely dependent upon God. Any power they have is not at all inherent, but is totally a gift of God, and as such can be overridden (or, which amounts to the same thing, withdrawn) at any time. And if there has not always been a multiplicity of finite actualities, it does not make sense to think of any uncreated and hence necessary principles as to how the actualities of the world can be ordered. Any such principles would be purely contingent ones, created along with the actualities whose behavior they describe, and hence alterable at (divine) will.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


    -7up
    Last edited by seven7up; 05-14-2014, 11:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seven7up
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    It is you who does not grasp it.

    Free will is not logically impossible under ex nihilo. That's just idiotic.

    Yes. It is logically impossible. Watch the videos (1a and 1b) and pay attention closely. So far, your commentary has demonstrated that you have not grasped the depth being addressed here.

    Let it simmer.

    -7up

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    An omniscient and omnipotent God has complete unilateral control. Reality will be EXACTLY what God created it to be and what God envisioned in His own mind before He even created it, down to the very most intricate detail, including what you "decided" to eat for breakfast this morning.
    -7up
    How does this differ from your god? Does yours not have the control over which intelligences to organize into spirit children? If he could choose Christ first, why could he not choose only the ones who would not rebel, like Lucifer did? If he knows what will happen (through omniscience), and allows that agent to come into existence, why is he not just as guilty as what you accuse ours of?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    No. In Calvinism (or Ex Nihilo), God WILLS people to go to hell, and therefore they do.
    Calvinism, yes. Ex Nihilo, not necessarily. Calvinism is a systematic theology while Ex Nihilo is a theory of creation. Apples and oranges. What you are using is the determinism of Calvinism and equating that to a method of creation.

    If God did not want them to go to hell 1) He could have created those particular individuals differently OR 2) He could have refrained from creating those individuals to begin with.
    And here is the whine I predicted at the beginning. What God COULD do and what He DOES are two different things that EVERY system suffers from, including yours. It would be unjust for God to decide not to create them based solely on what He knows they will do.


    Calvinism is the logical conclusion that is drawn from Ex Nihilo creation theology.
    It is A conclusion that can be drawn from Ex Nihilo. Molinism is another.


    No. My arguments are simply based in logic. "Preference" has not much to do with it.
    What an entity "Could" or "should" have done is not a logical argument. It is a preference that places your own wisdom above the decision making of the entity's.



    This ol' straw man again Bill? You and I both know that, from my perspective, God did everything perfectly. He did the very best possible with the eternal intelligences that He had to work with. The very fact that Had to work with flawed entities with free will is why we find sin and suffering in our world. It is not because God created flawed spirits Ex Nihilo.
    It's not a straw man. Either your god is impotent, clueless about the future, or he doesn't give a flying crap that he is in charge, and ultimately responsible for allowing the lost to even come to earth. If he knew satan was eventually going to rebel, and allowed satan to be spirit born in the first place, he is just as culpable as what you claim he is in Ex Nihilo.


    Do you think that repeating the terms "whiny" and "complaint" are sufficient to overcome the arguments of free will that you wish could exist in your theology Bill? You are going to have to do better than that. Try a substantive response for once.
    Your claims are whiny complaints against what God "should" have done. You are placing YOUR morals and reason above God's.

    While you think on that, I will have a Calvinist preach to you:

    "In Calvinism, there is no conflict between the will and nature of God and the nature of ultimate reality, or the basic laws of reality. Whereas in an Arminian or an LDS view, sin and suffering, to the extent that they occur, are indications of the failure of God to attain his desires and reminders that God is limited by a universe he did not create
    Straw man #1. In an Arminian view, God DID create the universe. And God does NOT always get His desires, so this guy is bating a big fat ".000" from the get-go...

    and over which he does not have full control,
    Straw man #2. We believe God is in full control. We do not believe He is MAKING every action occur though. That's not control. That's doing it yourself.

    in the Calvinist view, sin and suffering, like all things, are outworkings of the free plan of God.
    Translation: It's all one big puppet show.

    There are no “lawlike structures or principles” which are coeternal and not identical with God himself.
    That's your guys burden to bear, not Arminians.

    Rather, in Calvinism, all the laws of reality are rooted in him, in his nature and will. He is in full control of reality. ...
    Arminians have no issue with that statement in its context.


    Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian thought.
    Back that bull dozer up on this pile of stinking poo... This guy is basically arguing that God runs a giant puppet show and is incapable of allowing His creation to act at all. it is ultimately God acting through them. That means that God is the one who is responsible for the sin of mankind. God, through Adam, broke His own commandment. Therefore, it is God, and not man, who is responsible for the first sin, and thus, God is the real sinner. That's the logic that must flow out of Calvinistic determinism when it is described the way this fellow is doing.

    In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.
    This assumes that man is acting as a puppet, and thus, not responsible for their own sin.

    So, there is a conflict between ex nihilo creation and some of the central features of the Arminian universe. ...
    Utterly false. There is a conflict between determinism and Arminianism, but Ex Nihilo still functions within Arminianism just fine.

    To put it another way, the explanation for the particular choices free creatures make, in the Arminian view, cannot be found in the fact that God gave his creatures free agency.
    Sure it can. Knowledge of the choice does not imply causation of the choice, even by creation of the being that chooses it.

    God’s act of creation was a cause that had some effects.
    Which makes God responsible for the consequences, not the creation.

    By definition, an effect is something that exists by means of having been determined by some preceding action as its cause.
    So, blaming the effect for the action of the cause is unjust.

    If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature, they therefore cannot be effects of God’s creative activity.
    They are consequences of God's creating our nature, not inevitibilities forced by it. or else, there would be no such thing as "acting contrary to your nature".

    They cannot be explained by it or traced back to it.
    They can be products of it. Without the choice being real, it is unjust to punish someone for the results.

    They are wholly self-existent or self-originated.
    False. They are consequences of a created nature, which God DID create. They are not independent of our existence, and no Arminian claims that. For something to truely be "self-existent", it has to be able to exist without any other factor. So, remove the individual, and the choice should still exist if it were "self-existent". But it is contingent on our existence. So, strawman #3

    God cannot create uncaused choices, directly or indirectly. " - Mark Hausam
    Nor can choices truly exist independent from the chooser or the object to be chosen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    7UP: In mainstream Christian theology, where does your spirit come from? When does your spirit come into existence?



    You are just trying to be "indirect" about it. It doesn't matter how "indirectly" you try to twist your way out of it. An omniscient and omnipotent God has complete unilateral control. Reality will be EXACTLY what God created it to be and what God envisioned in His own mind before He even created it, down to the very most intricate detail, including what you "decided" to eat for breakfast this morning.

    Christian Philosopher Thomas Oord relates two significant points as follows:

    *Problem of Evil: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power. But a God of love with this capacity appears culpable for failing to prevent evil.

    *Empire Problem: The kind of divine power implied in creatio ex nihilo supports a theology of empire, based upon unilateral force and control of others.
    Just making such a claim does not make it true, 7up. There is no reason a God who creates out of nothing could not make beings with free will.




    The intelligences are entities of free will. If you have thought long and hard about this theological framework, we can consider the possibility that these entities themselves decide to enter into that spiritual form.
    So basically, you are saying that it was just pure luck that God's first born was Jesus and not YOU? Or Satan? That the Father had no say in the matter? I thought the LDS believed that the "intelligences" had no actual mind, able to make decisions or do anything until they were placed in spirit form?

    Here is another problem with eternal and infinite intelligences floating around out there. If there truly are an infinite number of them, then there is no way they can all become spirit beings or humans. No matter how many you take from the pool of infinite intelligences, there will be an infinite number left. So the LDS idea of intelligences basically condemns these beings to an eternity of limbo. And if as you suggest they are conscious, then it is torture to exist forever with a mind but no body or ability to do anything but float around. No spirit, no body, just basically a "brain in a jar" existence. Forever and ever, for an infinite number of intelligences.

    The LDS doctrines of intelligences is worse than any hell you guys accuse Christians of coming up with.



    As I have discussed previously, Ex Nihilo creation theology is a veiled form of Pantheism, whereby the created Universe is a projection of God's own creative imagination which results in nothing more and nothing less than what God imagined it would be in His own mind before deciding to create it.

    -7up
    If anything christian theology is not pantheistic, but more panentheistic. At least try to understand the terms you toss about. So far you have shown you have no understanding of ex nihilo, the trinity, infinity, eternity, free will, and pantheism.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    Even Evangelical Christians usually admit that God is not omnipotent in the sense that there are no logical contradictions. God cannot, for example, create a circle with four corners.

    The argument that you are attempting to use here fails under this category. I explained it in the video; you simply have not grasped it. I provided a quote to Bill which explains the concept in summary. Please read it carefully.






    You have not even begun to demonstrate any understanding that is necessary for the level of discussion being addressed here. I will try to be patient.


    -7up
    It is you who does not grasp it.

    Free will is not logically impossible under ex nihilo. That's just idiotic.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X