|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 08/22/2004 : 15:39:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Each time I read a post in this thread that needs a good response, I merely scroll down and find a better response than I could have formulated. Usually the response is from Ricky, but Kil, Dave W., and ConsequentAtheist have also on occasion taken the words from my fingers.
Thanks for that great compliment Boron, and I 2nd your entire post (I think we are in total agreement on the position of a god).
What I am having trouble with, beskeptigal, is this thing you call "god theory". Are you talking about a scientific theory? If so, it must come from a hypothesis that has been tested several times. But the discussion we are having is whether or not no test can equal no existance. Furthermore, that hypothesis that needs to be tested that leads to a theory must come off an observation, and once again, there has been no observation of god. So I hope you are not using theory in the scientific manner.
Science can not challenge the unobservable. Science starts with an observation and move on from there. Science only deals with the observable universe. So I think that any conclusion you reach that god does not exist through science is flawed. You can very well say that it is extremely unlikely that god exists, as I do, but never that he/she/it does not exist. At least from a scientific stand point.
Edited for spelling/clarification. Its amazing how many times you can read over something looking for errors and not find any till you post it |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/22/2004 15:41:03 |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2004 : 19:26:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Science can not challenge the unobservable. Science starts with an observation and move on from there. Science only deals with the observable universe. So I think that any conclusion you reach that god does not exist through science is flawed. You can very well say that it is extremely unlikely that god exists, as I do, but never that he/she/it does not exist. At least from a scientific stand point.
I agree with this. So, for example, we read the following:
quote:
In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: - You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.
This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.
- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler
But an agreement that the God(s) is 'out of scope' does not necessarily end the discussion. At issue is whether or not the question of the existential possibility of this 'supernatural realm' is comparable, for example, to that of the existential possibility of the Yeti. I do not believe that it is. Yeti requires the acceptance of the improbable. God(s) require the rejection of the axioms upon which science rests.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2004 : 21:10:36 [Permalink]
|
The idea that science cannot challenge the unobservable or the supernatural realm is not available to scientific inquiry is the concept I am objecting to, Consequent. I am aware of that position but I do not believe it applies to god. I think it applies to exploring what came before the BB and what is outside of the Universe.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
What about my god that sits in the corner of galaxy Zaphilac and does nothing? Remember, if you deny the possibility of god, you must deny all gods, known and unknown.
If god is undetectable and takes no actions, then how is this a god? What qualities does this god in the corner have that makes it a god?
Dave wrote:
quote:
Given the vast number of people who have lived before me, and the vast number living now, I simply cannot be the only one to imagine (and please note the emphasis) a god which set up the universe as we know it, and only interacts with us upon our death (telling us, at least, whether we lived up to its expectations - a "good life" - or not).
In other words, I think the idea that there might be a god which interacts with humans solely in ways which are undetectable by living humans is something which cannot be ignored in discussions like this one (though the idea can be ignored entirely when dealing with the non-specualtive). It is a "definition" of divinity which your working hypothesis fails to take into account, and so I think your hypothesis fails on its premises, by being too specific.
You are describing life after death as a concept that cannot be tested and for that part of it I agree. But a god who only interacts after we die does not meet the criteria nor definition of god in any known religion. If you want to change the definition of god and say one can't test for god that you've defined, just as Ricky's god that doesn't do anything, you'd have to show me some example of a religion that describes their god(s) in that way. I am not aware of any, are you?
It comes back to defining what you mean by god. People believe their god(s) gave information to them or their ancestors in some way. All religions and all god concepts have been passed down from humans to humans. This required a god interacting with someone in the past or present in some way, whether it be by direct communication or indirect.
quote:
There is near-universal agreement amonst those people who believe in one god or another that their deity(ies) are much more pwoerful than we mere mortals. There is near-universal agreement amongst those people who believe in a "soul" or "reincarnation" or what-have-you that after one's life here on Earth is over, the "rules" about one's possible interaction(s) with god(s) change. If (and please again note the emphasis) some sort of god exists, then the idea that it or they must be constrained by your rule that it (or they) must interact with humans in a detectable fashion by living humans is nothing more than a conceit.
When Einstein made his famous "God does not play dice" comment, Bohr reportedly replied, "stop telling God what to do." beskeptigal, your working hypothesis is only valid so long as whatever god might exist decides to play by your rules. Can you give me a good reason for why it should?
Yes, I can. Because I take a different approach.
We have religion and belief in god(s). Either that belief is based on real gods or it is based on human imagination. If it is based on human imagination, then all aspects of the religion should be within the realm of human imagination.
Humans believe god(s) have certain characteristics. It is in each religion, it isn't in my 'conceit'. Those characteristics include more than just sitting back and seeing you in heaven.
For one, god(s) have provided stories of their and the Universe's origins, descriptions of the Universe, rules with consequences for certain actions, and so on.
There is a lot of evidence that the stories of creation, whether it be from the Bible or whether it be other traditions such as with many aboriginals, are not accurate. That is evidence of human imagination, not god(s) interaction giving rise to the origin of the stories.
There is evidence that religious traditions describing the Universe also do not have correct descriptions. For example, the Bible totally misses the boat on the germ theory. Advice to keep oneself healthy such as in Leviticus where god tells the priests how to keep people out of the town if they have 'lesions' is not an action that would prevent disease. Where as hand washing and not using a community contaminated water source would have been useful. That is evidence for human imagination and not god(s) interaction.
If you want to say I am describing criteria for testing the validity of the Bible and not the existence of god(s), then you are talking about god(s) which are not part of any religion and therefore, not gods but something else.
Show me a religious text that describes a god that has no interaction with humans until death. You have to have some definition of god other than 'anything's possible', because no religion describes a god that way. They may use that kind of terminology, but there is still a set of criteria they attribute to their god. "I am to worship", "We follow taboos", This is what god has told us", and so on.
So in the practical world I live in, religion can be tested. If only human imagination shows up, and if you define god as religions do, a god that interacts, and nothing can be found except within the realm of human imagination, it's time to call a duck a duck.
Criteria I would expect if god were real would be things like, a correct creation story; descriptions of galaxies before telescopes; recognition that the Moon light was reflected light rather than original light, (which doesn't show up in any astronomy writings until quite late); food preparation and hand washing traditions that if didn't recognize the germ theory, recognized the principles; and, true response to prayer which so far has only shown a significant effect if the actions are known by the recipient, placebo effect either cannot be ruled out or the studies show prayer has no significant effect.
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 03:32:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
God(s) require the rejection of the axioms upon which science rests.
What about my god that sits in the corner of galaxy Zaphilac and does nothing?
quote:
"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."
You've yet to address my comments on your "nothing is impossible" confusion. Your sophomoric god-construct is irrelevant to me.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 03:48:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
The idea that science cannot challenge the unobservable or the supernatural realm is not available to scientific inquiry is the concept I am objecting to, Consequent. I am aware of that position but I do not believe it applies to god.
Methodological naturalism has meaning only in an isomorphic universe characterized by natural processes that are generalizable and extensible. There is no set of protocols by which one can presume to gain knowledge of God. There is no 'methodological supernaturalism' other than "revelation".
My Orthodox Jewish daughter and son-in-law are quite clear that Hashem created a world replete with fossils. How would you propose to disprove such a position? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 19:11:41 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
You are describing life after death as a concept that cannot be tested and for that part of it I agree. But a god who only interacts after we die does not meet the criteria nor definition of god in any known religion.
I don't know about that. With some 10,000 distinct religions (according to World Christian Encyclopedia), there's a lot of wiggle room in "known religions."quote:
If you want to change the definition of god and say one can't test for god that you've defined, just as Ricky's god that doesn't do anything, you'd have to show me some example of a religion that describes their god(s) in that way. I am not aware of any, are you?
No, and I don't claim to have encyclopedic knowledge of religions, either.
However, as I said in my prior post, I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I'm the first to conceive of such a "do nothing" god. And I also believe that such a diety would be highly attractive to a certain sub-set of the general population. Back in my own "woo-woo" days, I could have gotten into a religion based upon such a being, had I learned of one (I didn't go looking).quote:
It comes back to defining what you mean by god. People believe their god(s) gave information to them or their ancestors in some way. All religions and all god concepts have been passed down from humans to humans. This required a god interacting with someone in the past or present in some way, whether it be by direct communication or indirect.
Great! Let's assume that such an interaction (the teaching of a creation story) is the only interaction some hypothetically real god has had with human beings. The story of the Big Bang, galactic formation and abiogenesis has become hopelessly lost through poor comprehension and human embellishment, to the point where "turtle caught fire and is now the sun, jaguar coughed up a hairball which became the Earth, and crow cried the rivers into being." We're on the receiving end of a tremendous game of "Telephone," here. There's little reason to think that such stories should be accurate in any way.quote:
Humans believe god(s) have certain characteristics. It is in each religion, it isn't in my 'conceit'. Those characteristics include more than just sitting back and seeing you in heaven.
No, your conceit is in your insistence that god is definable or understandable by human standards. It's a conceit that many people share, but most of them have it in their quest to "know" god on a personal level. You seem to hold that idea in order to claim that no god exists.quote:
For one, god(s) have provided stories of their and the Universe's origins, descriptions of the Universe, rules with consequences for certain actions, and so on.
None of which matters, given the amount of time which has gone by. Obviously, many (if not most) religions have been plagued with politics for ages. The religious leaders change the religion to suit their own needs.
And as I said, the "interaction" requirement you've set forth may have been met centuries or millenia ago, and all evidence of it has been lost. If a god exists out there which has interacted with humans in the past, it may be waiting for an unknown (or even known) set of conditions to exist here before it interacts again. We're talking about unknowable deities here. Those which work in "mysterious ways." Any claim that, due to human definitions, gods must act in certain ways really misses the point and the power behind being a god.
Look, Christians claim that their God can do however he pleases, but then place all sorts of limits upon him. For example, if I die without accepting Jesus, God (according to many) really has no choice but to condemn me because Heaven's perfection cannot be tainted. He simply cannot change his ways, and is unable to make exceptions, and that makes him - in my mind - much less god-like and much more like a human social and political tool to use as leverage over the "flock."
I won't fall for such human idiocy. If (and again, note the emphasis) a god or gods exist, I'm convinced that it or they will be so outside human comprehension that "definitions" of what a god is will be absolutely meaningless.
So, you can set up a strict definition of what a god is, and then show that none of those exist, but if the limits you've set upon god are based upon nothing but the commonalities you can find in malleable and often politically-motivated human religions, your argument is less than compelling. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 20:06:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
You've yet to address my comments on your "nothing is impossible" confusion. Your sophomoric god-construct is irrelevant to me.
I'm sorry, I must have missed these, please show me what exactly you are referring to so I know what to reply.
See my comments on the bottom of page 3 posted 08/18/2004 at 06:55:59.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
In response to you calling me sophomoirc, I see no need for bringing words such as that into the converstation.
I was (mis)characterizing the god-construct, not you. I'm sure that you're a very nice fellow. I had hoped that my reference to Lewis Carroll would have put my comments in perspective. In truth, I mispoke and should have used the term 'inane'.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 08/23/2004 20:07:59 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 20:45:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Then again, those who maintain that "everything should remain in the realm of possible" must accept that it is "possible" that we live in a natural world which operates in an ordered, consistent, and generalizable manner that precludes the possibility of certain events and processes: a world in which cheetos cannot be transformed into gold earrings by chanting a phrase from Isaiah, a world in which mosquitos cannot be transformed into rhinos by praying to Ba'al, a world in which sunflowers cannot walk over to the cat dish and slurp up the milk when they're thirsty, a world in which turtles cannot levitate and penguins cannot recite E. E. Cummins, a world in which fig rees cannot be cursed to death and pigs cannot be infested with demons, i.e., an ordered system in which a seemingly unending list of conjectures are impossible.
You cannot believe that all things are possible without entertaining such a world. You cannot entertain such a world and simultaneously believe that all things are possible. The assertion that all things are possible is irrational.
You may or may not think that this is an acceptable answer, but we will find out. To all these claims, I can say in reason that they are false. However, science is not static, its always dynamic. Whats true in one point of time in science does not have to be at a later point. Therefore, I conclude that since science can always change, whenever you investigate something through science, you can never be 100% sure, as it can always change. You can be 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure, but never 100%. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/24/2004 07:36:22 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 00:58:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by RickyYou can be 99.9999999999999999[...]99999999% sure, but never 100%.
I just round up. 
[Got rid of a few nines in the quote - Dave W.] |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/24/2004 00:59:13 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 01:50:45 [Permalink]
|
Who stretched the thread? Could you edit your quote or link so it remains on the screen without scrolling right?
The god in my god theory is the standard god of the majority of religions. It is a god that supposedly interacts with humans. I personally have found overwhelming evidence supporting that god to be a product of the imagination of humans, and, I personally have found no evidence to conclude there are any actual gods using that definition.
There are three things that must be said here. One, I am claiming one can test for whether god(s) are human mind creations or real entities. Two, we do have a different definition of god. And, three, I am not claiming to have completed all the testing of all religions and all versions of god(s).
For me personally, I feel there is more than sufficient evidence that religion and god(s) are a product of human imagination. But I don't claim to be the expert who has tested all religions and everyone should accept my conclusion. There is a lot of possible testing that can be done. That's why I described the hypothesis. One has to define the criteria to be tested and validate whether the criteria are indeed a valid measurement and do the testing.
If one wants to define a god as not interacting with humans and therefore not detectable so therefore not falsifiable then we are talking about two different things. It goes with the position that one can't reach absolute proof nor rule anything out ever.
I don't take that position because I think it doesn't serve any purpose in trying to understand the Universe and all that is in it. The saying isn't mine but it fits. I have an open mind, but not so open that there is a hole in my head. And, I have no problem reconsidering something I have ruled out if new evidence arises. Science can be on a continuum of very esoteric or very practical. I'm quite a bit over on the practical side. Preponderance of evidence is sufficient. Waiting for absolute truth is unobtainable.
As far as the original stories being interpreted by humans and changed over time so the evidence of a god influence has washed out, that is one possible conclusion. And, quite often it is the conclusion many draw in order to decrease the dissonance between scientific discoveries and their religious beliefs.
Start with the premise, if there is a god there should be some evidence. If you take the position that one option is there will be 'no evidence', then you are using a different definition of god. I am not faulting you for taking that position, it just isn't the position I take.
There can be a great deal of disagreement as to what constitutes that evidence. Criteria that are chosen to test for have to be validated as actually showing what you say they show.
I don't have a monopoly on what the criteria need to be, I have looked at some criteria, as I said previously, and have concluded there is overwhelming evidence that there is no god. But, the door is open if others wish to establish alternative criteria to be tested. I have yet to be shown by any challengers evidence that would meet the criteria proving a god exists.
As to the belief that god made everything as is, fossils and all, there are other criteria one could use to test a god under those conditions. Research into whether or not prayer has an effect, for example, can be tested. The Bible's own inconsistency while god is supposed to be perfect is another. There still are sufficient errors in the Bible to test for, but more importantly, the criteria I suggest is to look for evidence that exceeds what people could have known or thought of at the time. The Bible version of the beginning totally ignores the rest of the world that was out of the Bible originators' awareness. That's evidence for human origin of the religion. There is still a vast amount of evidence pointing toward human origin and no evidence pointing toward god origin.
I think one of my points being missed here is that I am claiming god can be tested for rather than, I have developed complete clear unquestionable criteria and done all the tests.
And, the second point I think is being missed is that instead of just testing for the presence of a god, the true scientific approach would be to start with the evidence, not the conclusion and see where the evidence takes you.
The evidence is 'religion' that has developed throughout all human societies. The test should be what best explains religion, human manufacture or real gods. You could add the other alternative often mentioned of a visit and interaction with ETs at some point in the past.
Using this approach, there is overwhelming evidence religion is a product of the human psyche, not a product of real gods. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/24/2004 02:01:36 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 06:16:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
What it seems to me is that you consider the improbable as impossible, or at least nearly impossible. This is just the general feeling that I get, and its partially due to the fact that I don't think anything is impossible. [emphasis added - CA]
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Then again, those who maintain that "everything should remain in the realm of possible" must accept that it is "possible" that we live in a natural world which operates in an ordered, consistent, and generalizable manner that precludes the possibility of certain events and processes: a world in which cheetos cannot be transformed into gold earrings by chanting a phrase from Isaiah, a world in which mosquitos cannot be transformed into rhinos by praying to Ba'al, a world in which sunflowers cannot walk over to the cat dish and slurp up the milk when they're thirsty, a world in which turtles cannot levitate and penguins cannot recite E. E. Cummins, a world in which fig rees cannot be cursed to death and pigs cannot be infested with demons, i.e., an ordered system in which a seemingly unending list of conjectures are impossible.
You cannot believe that all things are possible without entertaining such a world. You cannot entertain such a world and simultaneously believe that all things are possible. The assertion that all things are possible is irrational.
You may or may not think that this is an acceptable answer, but we will find out. ... Therefore, I conclude that since science can always change, whenever you investigate something through science, you can never be 100% sure, as it can always change. [emphasis added - CA]
Do you understand that these represent different assertions?
Please edit your thread. Trust me, typing in a ridiculously long number does nothing to enhance your position. We all are relatively sure (if not 100% sure) that you can press the '9' key. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 07:54:30 [Permalink]
|
Yea, sorry about that guys, I had no idea it would strech the thread out like that and I edited my post. Now H. Humbert just has to edit his.
To beskeptigal:
quote:
The god in my god theory is the standard god of the majority of religions. It is a god that supposedly interacts with humans. I personally have found overwhelming evidence supporting that god to be a product of the imagination of humans, and, I personally have found no evidence to conclude there are any actual gods using that definition.
Again, what kind of theory? It certainly isn't a scientific one.
quote:
There are three things that must be said here. One, I am claiming one can test for whether god(s) are human mind creations or real entities. Two, we do have a different definition of god. And, three, I am not claiming to have completed all the testing of all religions and all versions of god(s).
I disagree with one, not sure why you said two, and firmly agree with three. Why must you be able to test for a god? What makes you so cock sure that if there is a god, it has to be one that you can observe? I think that we have not observed everything in this universe, in fact only a very small percentage, and that there are many more things to be discovered. Can god not be one of them?
I would like to restate my position that I think it is extremely unlikely for god to exist. I am arguing from a point of possibility, not probability. Just to avoid any confusion.
quote:
If one wants to define a god as not interacting with humans and therefore not detectable so therefore not falsifiable then we are talking about two different things. It goes with the position that one can't reach absolute proof nor rule anything out ever.
Exactly, no absolute proof in science. And no absolute disproof.
quote:
I don't take that position because I think it doesn't serve any purpose in trying to understand the Universe and all that is in it. The saying isn't mine but it fits. I have an open mind, but not so open that there is a hole in my head. And, I have no problem reconsidering something I have ruled out if new evidence arises. Science can be on a continuum of very esoteric or very practical. I'm quite a bit over on the practical side. Preponderance of evidence is sufficient. Waiting for absolute truth is unobtainable.
But a position you must take is that your current understanding of the Universe can change at any point. This happened with Einstien and I'm pretty damn sure it will happen again.
quote:
Start with the premise, if there is a god there should be some evidence
Based upon your premise, if it is in fact true then your position is understandable. However, I don't think it is. I consider any being that has infinite power or knowlege to be a god. Whether he uses them or not does not have any influence on whether he is a god or not.
To ConsequentAtheist:
quote:
Do you understand that these represent different assertions?
I'm not exactly sure what you are refering to. Are you saying that I am making a different assertion or are you reffering to assertions that you made such as "a world in which cheetos cannot be transformed into gold earrings by chanting a phrase from Isaiah" etc? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 08:18:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Do you understand that these represent different assertions?
I'm not exactly sure what you are refering to.
Ricky, I highlighted 2 assertions. Do you understand that they are different? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
