Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

1…34689…13

Comments

  • #152
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    We will have to leave it there, I think.


  • #153
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    We will have to leave it there, I think.

    Leave what? Just asking do you think it is unfair to characterise an introductory text as being sleazy or dishonest for not starting with the more complex arguments first?


  • #154
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Leave what? Just asking do you think it is unfair to character an introductory text as being sleazy or dishonest for not starting with the more complex arguments first?

    Eh, leave or interaction there! If you find Robin Le Poidevin's method acceptable then I'm not likely to change your mind. I haven't actually read his book so it would be foolish of me to argue this down the line. But if Feser's analysis is correct then I think so is his opinion.

    Additionally, I'm not here to defend his accusations of sleaziness or dishonesty. I'm not Feser's apologist. I don't mind his style one bit. I can also take people at the extreme end of rudeness (Dawkins and Atkins) and rhetoric (Hitches - both Christopher and Peter) in small doses. Email him if you want a defence. That said if I look at Dennett's incorrect simplification of the cosmological argument I can only conclude that he was one of the following: uninformed, careless or dishonest. I don't know about sleazy.


  • #155
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Seriously introductory texts, mentioning the bare bones version?

    They got the bares bones wrong from the start, that is Feser's point. No point in putting a version of the argument so watered down that it doesn't resemble the actual argument that they should be critiquing and then basing everything else they say after that on that.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Em, I might be wrong here but don't all the sources you provided also go into detail on the more complex variations of the argument?

    Even if they did they the still started out wrong. The simplest form of the argument is actually this:

    From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    The Deductive Argument from Contingency

    The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that something exists. We might sketch out the argument as follows.

    1.) A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
    2.) This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
    3.) The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
    4.) What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
    5.) Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
    6.) Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
    7.) Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists

    This is where they should've started.


  • #156
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Even if they did they the still started out wrong. The simplest form of the argument is actually this:

    From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    The Deductive Argument from Contingency

    The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that something exists. We might sketch out the argument as follows.

    1.) A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
    2.) This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
    3.) The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
    4.) What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
    5.) Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
    6.) Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
    7.) Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists

    This is where they should've started.

    Even Craig doesn't start there...


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I would like to read The Last Superstition because he goes into much more detail about the various formulations of the cosmological argument but it is sadly out of print.

    From the reviews on Amazon it seems just more of the same old nonsense, but I'll hold off judgement till I get to read it.

    If anyone finds a (legal) online copy let me know. Anyone who gives out that much about atheists deserves me to have me read his work :pac:


  • #158
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Even Craig doesn't start there...

    I know, Craig mainly focuses on the Kalam Cosmological Argument which is a variation on the Cosmological Argument, which brings modern Science into it. If there is a flaw in this argument then it is that the Universe began to exist which is the second premise. The rest of the argument is sound if that second premise is held up by science which according to the standard Big Bang model it is.

    The first premise viz. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, is also born out to be true by everyday observations. Only by using quantum physics can this be argued against. But the closest that quantum physics can get is to us things like radioactive decay as Wicknight points out. The decaying of atoms by all accounts appears to be un-caused, but even that can be explained by how the strong and weak nuclear forces behave. The decaying is contingent on those forces and therefore it is because of how those forces behave that causes the radioactive decay.


  • #159
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Oh just the simple fact that that wasn't him, it was William Lane Craig.
    That's who I was referring to. Look at the thread title.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    It hasn't been shown to be full of holes. The only thing full of holes is you're knowledge on the subject. Please read the link and you'll know what I'm talking about. Don't just disregard it because the guy is not an atheist.
    My knowledge of the subject is full of holes? I'm not going to stoop to that level, but I will point out that I don't need to be an expert on the subject to understand that actual world authorities in physics have shown the argument to be full of holes.

    If you can't post without insulting other posters, it speaks little for your skill as a debater and less of your virtue as a Christian.


  • #160
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I know, Craig mainly focuses on the Kalam Cosmological Argument which is a variation on the Cosmological Argument, which brings modern Science into it. If there is a flaw in this argument then it is that the Universe began to exist which is the second premise. The rest of the argument is sound if that second premise is held up by science which according to the standard Big Bang model it is.

    The first premise viz. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, is also born out to be true by everyday observations. Only by using quantum physics can this be argued against. But the closest that quantum physics can get is to us things like radioactive decay as Wicknight points out. The decaying of atoms by all accounts appears to be un-caused, but even that can be explained by how the strong and weak nuclear forces behave. The decaying is contingent on those forces and therefore it is because of how those forces behave that causes the radioactive decay.

    Can we apply other every day observations to the question of God?

    Cause God doesn't come out to well from that ...


  • #161
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    That's who I was referring to. Look at the thread title.

    No you weren't. The subject was Edward Feser's blog at that time. And I noticed that you edited your orignal post to re-word to like this. Tut tut tut :rolleyes:
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    My knowledge of the subject is full of holes? I'm not going to stoop to that level, but I will point out that I don't need to be an expert on the subject to understand that actual world authorities in physics have shown the argument to be full of holes.

    This was one of the problems that Feser was talking about. Physicists speaking out of school. This is a philosophic argument and trained philosophers are better equipped to debate it than physicists who I'm sure are quite capable in their own fields.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    If you can't post without insulting other posters, it speaks little for your skill as a debater and less of your virtue as a Christian.

    Here's what you posted:
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Isn't this what you did, even though the cosmological argument has been shown to be full of holes, not the slam-dunk you thought it represented? :confused:

    For one I never claimed that it was the slam-dunk. I was just pointing out that it hadn't been refuted in the way that others in here were claiming it was. So if you don't like the phrase full of holes being directed at your knowledge on an argument then I would advise that you cease to use it yourself when directing it at an argument that hasn't got the holes you thought it had.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Can we apply other every day observations to the question of God?

    Cause God doesn't come out to well from that ...

    Is this an argument for something? :confused:


  • #163
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    BTW, in defence of some of the stick Soul Winner is getting for the whole nothing angle, I don't think that headlines like this help.

    I go back and forth over how I feel about the use of the word "nothing". It really requires some delving into Hawking's work to see what he means.

    In classical physics, a system's evolution is a function of time. A system can conceivably evolve in may different ways or "paths". Each possible path has an amplitude associated with it, which is derived from what is known as the classical action of the path, but the path the system actually takes is the one in which the action is stationary.

    In quantum mechanics, if we want to know the amplitude/probability of system being in some state at a given time, we add up all the amplitudes of the individual possible paths the system could have taken from some initial state, to get to that state.

    Quantum field theory is a simple extension of the above, only instead of dealing only with the mechanics of a system, we deal with fields defined on 3-dimensional space, at different times t. To find the probability of a field being in some configuration at a given time, we add up all the amplitudes of possible ways the field could have reached this configuration. This allows us to consider a wider range of systems.

    It is much harder to extend this to gravity because you must deal with space-time itself. Fields and particles are all defined on a metric of space and time, but space-time itself is not embedded in a higher space. What type of sum do we have to perform? We have to consider a three-dimensional geometry (spatial geometry) as an initial state, a three dimensional geometry as a final state, and add up the amplitudes of all the four-dimensional geometries (space and time) that have the start and final geometries as restraints or boundaries. I.e. We sum over all space-times that can produce our current universe from some initial boundary. Hawking's proposal [link]was as follows:

    "The sum should be over compact geometries. This means that the Universe does not have any boundaries in space or time (at least in the Euclidean regime). There is thus no problem of boundary conditions. One can interpret the [sum] over all compact four-geometries bounded by a given three-geometry as giving the amplitude for that three-geometry to arise from a zero three-geometry, i.e. a single point. In other words, the state is the amplitude for the Universe to appear from nothing."

    In other words, under the framework of quantum gravity, he looks at the probability of our current universe (three-geometry) spontaneously arising from a point of zero space and time (nothing), by adding up all the compact space-time geometries, and discovered that the probability is non-zero. You could also say that the quantum-gravitational framework is not "nothing".


  • #164
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    No you weren't. The subject was Edward Feser's blog at that time. And I noticed that you edited your orignal post to re-word to like this. Tut tut tut :rolleyes:

    I am well aware of what I was referring to, thank you. I edited the post a couple of minutes later because I originally referred to the 'Kalam cosmological argument that you made', which I realised was unnecessarily specific when I read the post back. I resent the suggestion that I edited my post later in response to something you wrote. Once again, for a Christian, you seem very keen on doing down your neighbour and casting aspersions. All for the glory of God, huh? :rolleyes:
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    For one I never claimed that it was the slam-dunk. I was just pointing out that it hadn't been refuted in the way that others in here were claiming it was. So if you don't like the phrase full of holes being directed at your knowledge on an argument then I would advise that you cease to use it yourself when directing it at an argument that hasn't got the holes you thought it had.
    I'm afraid you did.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I've listened to a lot of Craig debates and I think he puts forth his arguments as clearly as one could expect. The reason he keeps repeating them is because nobody ever addresses them effectively enough let alone refute them adequately. For example, in debates like: "Does God exists." He gives his five good reasons to think that God does exist. God being defined as the creator, planner, and executor of the universe and all life in it. One of these good reasons is the Kalam Cosmological argument.

    You posted it as if it was one of the arguments that could not be refuted. It has been refuted, whether you like it or not.

    I'm tired of your insults and insinuations - good luck with spreading the good word.


  • #165
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Is this an argument for something? :confused:

    There are many arguments against the existence of God that can stem from observations of how things in this universe work.

    Any time this is tried the standard Christian response is that you cannot apply observations about the universe to the being supposed to have created the universe.

    There is merit in that logic, but equally shouldn't it be applied in this instance as well? If you assume that certain things hold beyond the scope of this universe then this creates issues for the Christian notion of God.

    For example, all observations of intelligence require simple components working in a complex manner. In fact it is difficult to imagine otherwise, in this universe a block of ice cannot be intelligent, it would require lots of inter dependent component parts.

    So intelligence comes about after the formation of these component parts. Intelligence evolves from non-intelligent organisms which in turn evolve from non-living components.

    Can this be applied to God, as people like Dawkins, have tired? God as described by Christians is unlikely to exist if we take rules of this universe, since a simple and full formed being that is also intelligent would not exist in this universe.

    So isn't that a strike against the probability of God? Or again can we not take such principles from inside the universe and apply them to beings that might exist outside or beyond?


  • #166
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    For posterity, a cosmological argument against the existence of God. I'm not tendering an opinion on this.

    http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_1_1.htm


  • #167
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    With my own personal misgivings aside, surely the refusal from the brightest of Brights to debate Craig is, as the link says, a "glaring omission". Why not just debate him? Win or loose they can at least put to an end all accusations that they are running scared. It's only a debate after all; there remains a difference between wining a debate in the view of an audience and the proposition of the debate being actually true. Or perhaps I'm being naive?
    Haven't read the rest of the thread, and I'm sure what what the points I'll make here have been covered elsewhere, but I'm plumping for you being naive and misunderstanding the nature of the kind of debate that WLC takes part in.

    WLC appears to be a good debater because he looks good and sounds great, at least right up until the point at which one listens to what he's saying. Which is typically a series of random or semi-random machine-gunned talking-points, strung together upon a chain of the most splendiferous irrationality. In terms of charnel-house debates -- the kind where presentation and confidence is far more important than content -- I think he could easily appear to trounce any of the atheist debaters currently doing the rounds. So I don't blame them for avoiding WLC, any more than I would blame them for not debating creationists and implicitly providing that lot with the oxygen of publicity that they so desperately crave.

    And most people will find it difficult to distinguish between a person losing a debate and a point of view being false, particularly if they are as unfamiliar with the dialectic, as they are familiar with choosing to hear things they agree with.

    But any time that the topic of WLC comes up, I recall a post from two years back::
    robindch wrote:
    Craig is an old-earth-creationist. His wiggly eyebrows and strangely camp taste in clothes might help convince the odd swing voter in the teleological me-me-me! contest that is organized religion, but in the less ephemeral circles where the big boys roam and where they make real contributions, Craig's canned talking-points aren't worth a cream cheese dildo.


  • #168
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    That's very eloquent. While I don't agree with the sentiment, that's a very nice arrangement of words.


  • #169
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    raah! wrote: »
    That's very eloquent. While I don't agree with the sentiment, that's a very nice arrangement of words.

    That's Rob for you. He types lots of words and strings them together very well but in the end says very little really. ;)


  • #170
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I am well aware of what I was referring to, thank you. I edited the post a couple of minutes later because I originally referred to the 'Kalam cosmological argument that you made', which I realised was unnecessarily specific when I read the post back. I resent the suggestion that I edited my post later in response to something you wrote. Once again, for a Christian, you seem very keen on doing down your neighbour and casting aspersions. All for the glory of God, huh? :rolleyes:

    You're just making yourself loo even more silly be continuing to defend your faux pas.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I'm afraid you did.

    Where is the part where I said it was a slam dunk? Keep digging.

    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    You posted it as if it was one of the arguments that could not be refuted. It has been refuted, whether you like it or not.

    It has been refuted sorry.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I'm tired of your insults and insinuations - good luck with spreading the good word.

    If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. Good day to you sir.


  • #171
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,464 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    He types lots of words [...]
    One doesn't have much option in an internet-based discussion forum, eh?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    [...] and strings them together very well [...]
    Why, thanks! <hugs>
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    [...] but in the end says very little really.
    You're evidently still smarting from the last time that I flushed your dear little WC down the bog!


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    There are many arguments against the existence of God that can stem from observations of how things in this universe work.

    Any time this is tried the standard Christian response is that you cannot apply observations about the universe to the being supposed to have created the universe.

    There is merit in that logic, but equally shouldn't it be applied in this instance as well? If you assume that certain things hold beyond the scope of this universe then this creates issues for the Christian notion of God.

    How the bloody hell did you come to that conclusion. :confused:
    Wicknight wrote: »
    For example, all observations of intelligence require simple components working in a complex manner. In fact it is difficult to imagine otherwise, in this universe a block of ice cannot be intelligent, it would require lots of inter dependent component parts.

    So intelligence comes about after the formation of these component parts. Intelligence evolves from non-intelligent organisms which in turn evolve from non-living components.

    Even non intelligent organisms have at their most fundamental structural level specific sequences in their DNA coding that makes them be the creatures they are. This sequence is very complex indeed to say the least. So if the organisms themselves cannot be responsible viz. intelligent enough for coding their DNA in this way then what did? Could it be the material that is used in the structure of DNA? Of course not. So what then? Randomness?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Can this be applied to God, as people like Dawkins, have tired? God as described by Christians is unlikely to exist if we take rules of this universe, since a simple and full formed being that is also intelligent would not exist in this universe.

    God as described by Christians is the creator of the universe which implies it had a beginning. The Standard Big Bang Model (Science) agrees with this.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    So isn't that a strike against the probability of God?

    No.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Or again can we not take such principles from inside the universe and apply them to beings that might exist outside or beyond?

    Principles like cause and effect for example? I thought we weren't allowed to do that?

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Everything that has a beginning has a cause

    is a concept that is formed based on experiencing events inside our universe, events that follow the rules of our universe. Even if we could never find any evidence that counters this claim within our universe there is still no reason to suppose it holds to events that take place when the rules of our universe do not exist.

    It is thus illogical to apply this constraint to the state prior to the Big Bang, since the rule itself may not have existed.


  • #173
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    You're evidently still smarting from the last time that I flushed your dear little WC down the bog!

    That's all in your mind Rob, not mine. Slagging someone off because to you they wear camp clothes is not refuting their arguments no matter how good it makes you feel about how clever you are at doing it.


  • #174
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    robin and SW, if you are going to insist on whacking each other with cream cheese dildo's then you can take it elsewhere.


  • #175
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Morbert wrote: »
    For posterity, a cosmological argument against the existence of God. I'm not tendering an opinion on this.

    http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_1_1.htm

    I've only read this part and I'm confused already.


    "Why Steven Hawking's Cosmology Precludes a Creator

    by Quentin Smith


    Abstract: Atheists have tacitly conceded the field to theists in the area of philosophical cosmology, specifically, in the enterprise of explaining why the universe exists. The theistic hypothesis is that the reason the universe exists lies in God's creative choice, but atheists have not proposed any reason why the universe exists. I argue that quantum cosmology proposes such an atheistic reason, namely, that the universe exists because it has an unconditional probability of existing based on a functional law of nature. This law of nature ("the wave function of the universe") is inconsistent with theism and implies that God does not exist. I criticize the claims of Alston, Craig, Deltete and Guy, Oppy and Plantinga that theism is consistent with quantum cosmology.

    So the reason the universe exists is due to a law that exists within the universe? Please tell me it gets better :)


  • #176
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    How the bloody hell did you come to that conclusion. :confused:



    Even non intelligent organisms have at their most fundamental structural level specific sequences in their DNA coding that makes them be the creatures they are. This sequence is very complex indeed to say the least. So if the organisms themselves cannot be responsible viz. intelligent enough for coding their DNA in this way then what did? Could it be the material that is used in the structure of DNA? Of course not. So what then? Randomness?



    God as described by Christians is the creator of the universe which implies it had a beginning. The Standard Big Bang Model (Science) agrees with this.



    No.



    Principles like cause and effect for example? I thought we weren't allowed to do that?

    Whoa, whoa, whoa! You're a creationist?! I've wasted all this time on a creationist!


  • #177
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Whoa, whoa, whoa! You're a creationist?! I've wasted all this time on a creationist!

    :D

    Debating science with a creationist? :D:D


  • #178
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    God as described by Christians is the creator of the universe which implies it had a beginning. The Standard Big Bang Model (Science) agrees with this.

    I think the point being made is that the the Big Bag isn't the absolute beginning. There was something before this. Now someone like Krauss in his debate with Craig engages in pure obfuscation when he talks about "nothing" (I think Morbert mentioned this above) being the same as some-thing.

    Assuming nothing (no-thing) actually exists, I would think that science can never talk about it because science deals purely with some-things. The more I've looked into the cosmological argument the more I think that it is ultimately a metaphysical argument.


  • #179
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    And there it is. The slam dunk winner of all arguments. Nothing can compete with it. A favorite of atheists when they are loosing an argument. I just knew that it was going to happen, as it does with most debates with atheists. Call your opponent a creationist and hey presto you've just won the debate. Great stuff lads, you did it again. I actually thought it was going to be Wicknight but heck, yous got in there before him this time. Well done. You can go now and mutually slap each other on the back or exchange mutual high fives or whatever it is that gets you off. Oh and just to keep yous up to speed -obviously all this debating has gotten to your brain cells - we were disguising a philosophical argument not science.


  • #180
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Whoa, whoa, whoa! You're a creationist?! I've wasted all this time on a creationist!

    To be fair, SW believes in evolution he just calls it Intelligent Design. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    we were disguising a philosophical argument not science.
    Unfortunately your disguise wasn't very convincing. :D


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement