The laws of physics do not exist, only the will of God. Hence the father of physics, Isaac Newton, named these phenomenons himself the will of God.
The laws of physics are not a thing, that you can find somewhere, or that exist. Only exist atoms and photons according to orderly patterns that repeat themselves constantly.
Why do particles, photons etc, move this way? There is no other answer than God. God is the force that moves these things, and he is eternal and self sufficient. Without God, you can either make ad infinitums by saying external forces are making them move this way, but you re only postponing the problem : What makes these forces make the atoms move this way? Etc etc ad infinitum. To avoid this, you must find an answer that has no external cause. If there is no God, then there is nothing but chaos. Order cannot come from chaos, and something cannot come from nothing. There cannot be order, therefore there cannot be patterns that repeat themselves.
It is impossible to find an answer other than God, which would be a intelligent force, therefore an orderly force. Nothingness cannot create order. There must be a REASON for the patterns observed. Chaos and absence of God cannot explain these orderly patterns.
Do you believe you have a free will?
thats not the fricking topic
>The laws of physics do not exist, only the will of God.
Why did god choose these laws rather than different ones?
ask him + fine tuning indicates that it would probably be to create life + that's not the fricking topic
Fine tuning means the laws of physics are independent of god, ergo god is superfluous as an explanation.
>things can't have properties unless old man on a cloud says so
Low IQ.
Why do things have properties? Hard mode : answer anything but God, and without logical fallacy or absurdity
reminder : the "laws of physics" were different in early big bang
Fundamental properties are either necessary or brute contingencies.
>brute contingencies
>IT JUST IS OKAY?
So you have no argument and you are a religious fanatic that just denies god's existence by confirmation bias?
Just admit that you lost the debate. Brute contingency isn't an argument. It's the ultimate fallacy, it's not based on observation or something that must or can be, you just mean that you abandoned all reason. Brute contingency is how adults say "Just because". This is not a philosphical argument, this is you admitting that you are wrong.
The real answer is things do not have properties, because it's not possible. Things are moved by God
I ask again : why do things have "properties"?
I said that they are either necessary or they are brute contingencies. Your idea is that there is an old man on a cloud whose properties are necessary and he declares other properties. How is this any more reasonable?
Because it stems from intelligence/order thus it keeps reasoning intact. And like I said, and like you avoid conveniently, the "laws of physics" actually change, they wern't the same during the big bang, and they are not in the sweet spot of fine tuning. Why would they change witohut external force? You are saying that the atoms are basically programmed and have an algorithm that tweaks itself according to circumstances. you re basically saying that a DVD player buitl itself because it just is. An intelligence is a much simpler argument than saying a Monkey wrote all the tomes of Harry potter, made a cure for cancer, a vaccine for AIDS, a pill that makes someone immortal and programmed a sentient AI because it just is / muh contingency / inherent property. How can a person take you seriously if you are willing to go to these lengths? You re abandoning all reason.
Also, if you were honest and unbiased, you would put inherent property bullshit on par with god (why prioritize atoms ingherent properties instead of god inherent properties), but you instead think it has the upper hand, when it is really the god argument that has the upper hand, which is straight up delusional.
Thats why i said it was about order/intelligence vs chaos/nothingness in the first post. A dvd player being built by a japanese company is a simpler and more likely explanation that the dvd player buildign itself for no reason (complexity stemming from nothingness and chaos), the same applies to gods will vs inherent properties.
they are now in the sweet spot*
>Because it stems from intelligence/order
So god used his properties of intelligence and order in order to make sure that his properties would be intelligent and orderly? You truly are low IQ.
>Why would they change witohut external force?
I said fundamental properties. Properties which change either aren't fundamental or are fundamentally changeable in some way. We don't know whether we've discovered any properties that are fundamental.
>Thats why i said it was about order/intelligence vs chaos/nothingness in the first post. A dvd player being built by a japanese company is a simpler and more likely explanation that the dvd player buildign itself for no reason
Emergence from simple properties is obviously simpler than emergence from complicated properties like intelligence.
There's also one other obvious elephant in the room:
>why prioritize atoms ingherent properties instead of god inherent properties
We don't even know god exists. You're saying he exists because you don't like necessary properties, but then in order to say he exists you have to affirm necessary properties.
It seems that you're just afraid of death and coping.
>Properties which change either aren't fundamental or are fundamentally changeable in some way
That's called coping. If they change they arn't just inherent properties, they re algorithms, that's very advanced to claim it's just an inherent property
>to make sure that his properties would be intelligent and orderly
he doesnt have to make atoms intelligent, in fact how could they be intelligent? they clearly do not have the structure to exchange information. God moves the atoms himself at all times, hence God's will
>We don't even know god exist
You don't know if the inherent properties exist either
>You're saying he exists because you don't like necessary properties
You re saying properties exist because you don't like a necessary God
>but then in order to say he exists you have to affirm necessary properties.
Ther eis one claim for God and one claim for properties, which i will adress in the following post in a minute
>It seems that you're just afraid of death and coping.
Or you re afraid of a god and you're coping
>If they change they arn't just inherent properties, they re algorithms
Why cannot an algorithm be an inherent property?
>he doesnt have to make atoms intelligent
Not my point. I was poking fun at the fact that you claim there must be an intelligence behind "intelligent" properties, but god can't account for his own intelligent properties.
>You don't know if the inherent properties exist either
Some inherent properties must exist. You don't even disagree, you just think they're god's inherent properties.
>You re saying properties exist because you don't like a necessary God
See above.
>gods inherent property of being intelligent
Intelligence is a form of algorithm, you're just inserting a more complicated one.
>im not even adressing fine tuning which completely buries the no god claim
Who finetuned god to have such properties that he would want to create our universe?
>Why cannot an algorithm be an inherent property?Because you re infinitely increasing the complexity of inherent properties until you ll be backed against a wall, forced to say that the twins towers just spawn out of thin air because its just is/inherent rproperties. At some point, it reaches a level of complexity that makes an intelligence necessary and a superior argument to just say that everything is just because
>but god can't account for his own intelligent properties.
thats the one inherent property of god, which is less complex and cope than a dvd spawning of thin air/advanced alggorithms because muh contingency
>Some inherent properties must exist.
God must exist, you don't even disagree, you think they re inherent particles properties
>See above.
See above
>you're just inserting a more complicated one.
I think it is less complicated : What is more likely, a supernatural eternal powerful being intelligent, or every single fricking piece of shit braindead particule in the infintie universe moving in unison to the same music for no reason at all, all changing their dance after the big bang to make life possible, in harmony with other instruments like electromagnetism, gravity, weak interaction, strong interaction, etc etc.
You re attributing the intelligence of a GOD, to a infinite amount of braindead entities, that changes their tune in harmony and work in unison, despite being separate elements that are ligthyears apart without a conductor?Ithink you attribute much more work, complexity and unlikelihood by saying everything works like that just because, which would take a similar level of intelligence as of god himself, WHILE working in unison in a synchronized fashion, WHILE being braindead, while the complexity of what god does can be explained by his intelligence, hence his inherent property is more likely than your atoms inherent properties
>Because you re infinitely increasing the complexity of inherent properties
Nope. You can have an extremely simple algorithm that produces change.
>thats the one inherent property of god, which is less complex and cope than a dvd spawning of thin air/advanced alggorithms because muh contingency
Nope, it's the most complex think possible. You are saying that the start of everything is an infinitely intelligent being who has properties like love, justice, wanting people to cut off their foreskins etc. I'm saying that everything may have emerged from much simpler properties.
>God must exist, you don't even disagree, you think they re inherent particles properties
If you think your god is say a photon, then I obviously don't think that god doesn't exist. You don't define god that way though, do you? So stop being disingenuous and admit that both our models have inherent properties but only yours has god.
>every single fricking piece of shit braindead particule in the infintie universe moving in unison to the same music for no reason at all,
Particles are features of quantum fields. Of course each kind of particle has the same properties as the other particles of the same kind - the particle is not fundamental, the field is.
>You re attributing the intelligence of a GOD, to a infinite amount of braindead entities, that changes their tune in harmony and work in unison
We already know that complex things can emerge from simple properties. You're putting forward an infinitely complex entity (god) and saying that it's necessary, and I'm saying that the actually necessary things are probably quite simple.
>emerge from simple properties
you are using semantics to minimize the complexity of physics
intelligent intelligence is actually much less slim than untintelligent stuff behavior in a seemingly orderly /patterned /intelligent way. A human being dancing the macarena is more likely than a strawman being pushed by the end and looking like it's dancing the macarena
that's not what it means at all, you seem to force reality on yourself by saying things to reassure yourself and casting spells, do you also believe in astrology?
pushed by the wind*
>Who finetuned god to have such properties that he would want to create our universe?
It's an inherent property like i epxlained here
, but my inherent property is simpler and explains everything while yours is super advanced synchronized etc
that's not the topic cope on another thread instead of polluting this one please
>It's an inherent property like i epxlained here
(samegayging)
To add on that, let's compare God inherent properties vs energy/atoms/photons/physics etc inherent properties
-God :
>eternal
>self sufficient ( no external cause)
>intelligent (claim for no reason but it explains correctly why things are orderly without breaking reason, and is backed up that it would be some incomprehensible supernatural powerful being)
-Atoms/physics etc
>eternal
>self sufficient (no external cause)
>creates order and complexity, changes (according to an algorithm, so more than an inherent property : an ALGORITHM, which means information) WITHOUT intelligence or anyone programming it. (crazy as frick claim)
now whats it the most unreasonable inherent property :
- gods inherent property of being intelligent
or
- physics inherent properties of being programmed, and even changing according to an algorithm (information) IE a monkey writing harry potter and finding the cure for AIDS cancer and death, without any intelligence
im not even adressing fine tuning which completely buries the no god claim, but merely adressing the inherent properties for sports #, but my inherent property is simpler
Nope, it's extremely complicated. God himself is more complex than the entire universe. You're positing the complex thing as necessary in order to explain the simpler thing instead of the other way around.
And you still have the same old problem with fine-tuning.
In short, your model is more complicated, posits additional entities, and states bizarre thing such as the property of wanting boys to be circumcised being fundamental.
god himself is more complex, but the EXPLANATION is simpler and more reasonable according to what we know of life for reasons i have already mentioned
>foreskins
are you actually so fricking dumb that you cannot talk about god without thinking about or mentioning abrahamic religion? fricking hell
>an extremely simple algorithm
advanced algorithms that changes according to situations without a programmer, and that are conveniently spread everywhere in the universe because why not
Like i said an eternal powerful being being intelligent soudns more likely than braindead shit doing things like it was intelligent without being intelligent at all, in unison with other things that are also braindead yet act like its intelligent, in unison again, etc, etc. There are many algorithms, many particles, many behaviors, and they fricking change (big bang etc). The puppets are playing shakespare but there is no puppetteer, THAT sounds less likely, obviously for anyone that isn't extremely biased against the idea of god.
>our models have inherent properties but only yours has god.
Calm down here, like i showed, you are attributing the same propeties to energy, beign eternal, and self sufficient without any external cause. There is one claim for god and one claim for energy, which I shown here
If you start getting dishonest or forgetting stuff discussing the truth will be more difficult than it has to be.
God property is intelligence, your inherent particles properties are seemingly intelligent behavior without intelligence/ patterns without order (which is really contradictory). Gods intelligence explains everything, for matter, you have to explain a bunch of shit and say a lot more things.
>the particle is not fundamental, the field is.
Like I said in OP, classic postponign that doesnt change anything to the problem. It's a common feature in the argumentation of biased people that do not want to admit the obvious and cling.
>god himself is more complex, but the EXPLANATION is simpler
How can the explanation be simpler if you're positing an infinitely complex entity by fiat?
>are you actually so fricking dumb that you cannot talk about god without thinking about or mentioning abrahamic religion?
I will stop once you swear on your mother's life that you do not worship the god of Abraham, Jesus, or what have you.
>advanced algorithms that changes according to situations without a programmer, and that are conveniently spread everywhere in the universe because why not
The algorithm itself may not change, it could be that the algorithm produces variable results. You also conveniently ignored me telling you that particles are likely not fundamental.
>Like i said an eternal powerful being being intelligent soudns more likely than braindead shit doing things like it was intelligent without being intelligent at all, in unison with other things that are also braindead yet act like its intelligent
What do you mean by "act like it's intelligent" anyway? Any algorithm can look "intelligent", but they can be incredibly simple. Your foreskin god on the other hand is infinitely complex.
>Calm down here, like i showed, you are attributing the same propeties to energy, beign eternal, and self sufficient without any external cause
I am not. I am not claiming that love, justice, wanting to chop of baby foreskins etc. are fundamental, so I am clearly not working with the same properties as you.
>Gods intelligence explains everything
It's not hard to explain everything if you posit an infinitely complex entity by fiat.
>Like I said in OP, classic postponign that doesnt change anything to the problem.
It changes a lot. For instance, it disarms your argument about each particle independently acting "intelligently".
>you are using semantics to minimize the complexity of physics
Emergence is proven, god is not.
too long didn’t read
>post wall of text that can only be properly addressed with a wall of text
>complain about the reply being too long
Concession accepted.
OP here, I didnt post this, I answered here
and here
because it's only extra inherent property is that he's very intelligent, and than according to observations of our life, it seems more likely than programs witohut programmers and moving puppets without puppeteers, there s no need to say the unvierse has this perooperty, and this property, and this property, and it changes sometimes, and it does it while being synchronized and has algorithms (despite not being programmed) etc etc. Saying god is intelligent takes three words and explains everything without relying on stuff that has been to be observed life to be very unlikely/impossible (cats writing lord of the rigns by tapping their paws on the keyboard)
>I will stop
You should stop right now because that's simply not the conversation. i myself do not worship the god of abraham
>The algorithm itself may not change, it could be that the algorithm produces variable results
yeah, thats kindof, you know, the point of an algorithm.
> particles are likely not fundamental.
What does it change to the conversation? I didnt ignore shit, I answered you that it didnt change anything to the conversation
>act like it's intelligent
orderly, with patterns. Are you gonna make the argument that nothing exist, patterns arn't real and shakig violently is exactly the same as dancing or burping is as musical as maria callas casta diva? Cause that would disrupt all reasoning and end the conversation sicne you can't use patterns to demonstrate than patterns arn't real.
>It's not hard
You're right. WHich is why it's more likely. ANd the universe seems pretty close to god in terms of complexity. Like I said a human being dancing the macarena is more likely than a strawman being pushed by the end and looking like it's dancing the macarena, so I argue than God is actually less complex and more likely than your inherent properties of quantum shit. You argue that chaos creates order while defending thats all is completely chaotic despite obvious orderly patterns
>because it's only extra inherent property is that he's very intelligent
That is a lie. You must also posit character traits which prompt your god to do anything.
>Saying god is intelligent takes three words and explains everything
That alone explains nothing. There is an infinite number of possible universes and if I ask you why god created this one but not that one, "because he's intelligent" doesn't tell me anything.
What you're doing is like if I said that "because there are physical laws" is a full explanation of our reality.
>yeah, thats kindof, you know, the point of an algorithm.
And your problem with that is...?
>What does it change to the conversation?
It made you drop your ridiculous idea where each individual particle must have individual properties that prompt it to act intelligently.
>orderly, with patterns
That's synonymous with having properties.
>WHich is why it's more likely.
No, that's why it's a lazy explanation. I can explain anything I want by positing a more complex entire by fiat. I can even explain your god by positing a supergod.
>You argue that chaos creates order
No, I argue that properties create order.
>Like I said a human being dancing the macarena is more likely than a strawman being pushed by the end and looking like it's dancing the macarena
The latter is literally what you're arguing for though, with god being the one holding the end of the strawman.
>character traits which prompt your god to do anything.
why should gods traits that push him it whatever be inherent? by definition he would be mostly incomprehensible unless you were a prophet yourself
>because there are physical laws" is a full explanation of our reality.
funnily enough this is exactly what you are doing. I wouldnt say there is necessarily an infinite amount of possibilities, but there are several indeed. On the other hand, they are not equal in likelihood and how reasonable they sound.
>And your problem with that is...?
because you answered that it changes to respond to me sayign they are advanced. You re trying to pretend its a very simple thing and minimizing the complexity of the universe to pretend there is nothing wrong that these properties "just are" for no reason at all, when the complexity makes the position of an intelligent god sound more likely.
>It made you drop your ridiculous idea where each individual particle...
see
>
That's synonymous with having properties.
It's more than simple basic properties, they change, they re algorithmic andf they work in synchronicity with others, and the output isn't just a big pile of shit, which it could be, it s a working universe that breeds life. Goes back to the dancing strawman argument
>No, I argue that properties create order.
You do argue than chaos creates order because properties are order and you argue than these properties arn't made by an intelligent orderly god, but by chaotic void, and just happens to be here by itself for no reason, in a self sufficient manner like god.
>The latter is literally what you're arguing for though, with god being the one holding the end of the strawman.
What? The human being is intellignet, like God, and the strawman isnt alive or intelligent, like inherent quantum properties. How could you interpret it that way? That sounds insane. Can you explain yourself?
>quantum field as a single object, which eliminated the need for questions like "why does this atom have the same properties as this atom".
it doesn't really eliminate, because it you attach all small objects to a collection of many, then you moved from small items moving in synchronicity, to a single entity that becomes much more complex, you re getting dangerously closer to the properties of god. Basically you believe in god, but you believe that he has no intelligence, and that everything that happens just is for no reason, like the strawman i mentioned. If you saw a shadowy sillhouette dancing the macarena start to finish in the horizon during the sunset, would you think its a person dancing, of a strawman randomly pushed by the wind?
> our models use inherent properties.
This isnt really a model. It just means we dont know why its happening so dont think about it and think about the consequences. Nor it is a philosophical argument. You are saying "I'm right because I said so" just like a christian referring to the bible to prove it's verses, which is indeed extremely "low IQ", please cease projecting.
>That is not my answer
It literally is.
>properties which are necessary,
They re not.
>more complex properties emerge from these via emergence
it's exactly the same thing, inherent algorithmic properties, you re throwing words randomly in the hope than it sticks.
>making the puppeteer more complex because you're afraid of dying.
More like you're making the puppeteer braindead because you're afraid of consequences.
>to stick to single posts.
all posts are single posts, are you already running of ram because 2>1 ?
>It changes a lot. For instance, it disarms your argument about each particle independently acting "intelligently".
No, it postpones it. You say that the atoms do not moves that way but quantum fields have strings attached to every atoms. Atom or string, each has a distinct behavior according to many complex algorithms.
>Emergence
This isn't even an argument. because something happens before you eyes does not prove than inherent properties are proven. It's so funny that you act so high and all mighty, but then when asked why do these thigns happen, you answer "just because" and your answer is somehow so much better than more, despite sounding more ridiculous (puppets dancing without a puppetteer, yeah, sure, doesnt relate to anything we observe in life, but whatever)
>Atom or string, each has a distinct behavior according to many complex algorithms.
The algorithm is simple (Schrodinger equation). And you still missed the point that you can think of the quantum field as a single object, which eliminated the need for questions like "why does this atom have the same properties as this atom".
>This isn't even an argument. because something happens before you eyes does not prove than inherent properties are proven.
For the last time, both our models use inherent properties. Stop being so low IQ.
>It's so funny that you act so high and all mighty, but then when asked why do these thigns happen, you answer "just because"
That is not my answer. My answer is that there are properties which are necessary, and more complex properties emerge from these via emergence (which is a proven phenomenon unlike your god).
>despite sounding more ridiculous (puppets dancing without a puppetteer, yeah, sure, doesnt relate to anything we observe in life, but whatever)
The "puppeteer" are the fundamental properties. All you are doing is making the puppeteer more complex because you're afraid of dying.
This will be my last reply. Not interested in swapping 3 posts per reply, and you seem unable to discipline yourself enough to stick to single posts.
(samegayging)
To add on that, let's compare God inherent properties vs energy/atoms/photons/physics etc inherent properties
-God :
>eternal
>self sufficient ( no external cause)
>intelligent (claim for no reason but it explains correctly why things are orderly without breaking reason, and is backed up that it would be some incomprehensible supernatural powerful being)
-Atoms/physics etc
>eternal
>self sufficient (no external cause)
>creates order and complexity, changes (according to an algorithm, so more than an inherent property : an ALGORITHM, which means information) WITHOUT intelligence or anyone programming it. (crazy as frick claim)
now whats it the most unreasonable inherent property :
- gods inherent property of being intelligent
or
- physics inherent properties of being programmed, and even changing according to an algorithm (information) IE a monkey writing harry potter and finding the cure for AIDS cancer and death, without any intelligence
im not even adressing fine tuning which completely buries the no god claim, but merely adressing the inherent properties for sports
Apologists often come up with ridiculous numbers when talking about fine-tuning. For example, they say that life wouldn’t be possible if gravity was weaker by a factor of 1 in 10^60 or something like that. You will find similar numbers for other constants. The reported value of the gravitational constant is (6.67430 ± 0.00015)*10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. If the force of gravity was stronger by a factor of 1 in 10^60, not a single experiment in the history of humanity would be able to tell the difference.
Here is a link to the article of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on fine-tuning. They start with some examples of fine-tuning. In contrast to apologists, they actually cite the relevant publications for the claimed examples of fine-tuning. For the strong nuclear force, they report that if it was 50% stronger or weaker, the chemical balance would be too distorted for life. For the weak nuclear force, they talk about being weaker by a factor of 10. For the cosmological constant, they talk about a few orders of magnitude. Thus the fundamental constants need to be within certain ranges in order to make life as we know it possible, but these ranges are not as narrow as apologists like to pretend.
narrow compared to what? why does light travel at 300 000km/h and not 1 km/h, or 0.000000000001 km/h, or 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 lightyears per planck time?
per second*
Religious apologists tend to believe in disembodied minds. Such minds are independent of matter, so they are also independent of the fundamental constants of the universe. If that’s true, life is possible in all possible universes, regardless of fundamental constants.
So let’s assume there would be a fine-tuner. This fine-tuner would need to be powerful enough to create the universe with chosen fundamental constants, intelligent enough to know what kind of universe those fundamental constants would result in and sufficiently interested in life to use its powers for that purpose. What kind of universe would such a fine-tuner create?
The fine-tuner is interested in life and capable in creating it, so we would expect a universe full of life. If life is the entire purpose of the universe, it wouldn’t be confined to some incredibly small dot in some insignificant corner of the universe. Life also would exist right from the start, rather than emerge after billions of years. Life would play some special role in the universe, rather than being as insignificant as it is.
Imagine a baker opening a bakery. But instead of baking anything, the baker doesn’t do anything for 6 years. Then, after 6 years, the baker bakes one cake. A week later, he retires. The bakery was built for baking food, and that purpose is achieved now. Compare this to the hypothetical fine-tuner. Instead of 6 years, the fine-tuner waited about 10 billion years. The observable universe has a volume of about 3.6*10^80 m^3, and Earth’s biosphere has a volume of about 1*10^19 m^3. Thus about 1 in 3.6*10^61 of the volume of the universe has shown a sign of life.
>it wouldn’t be confined to some incredibly small dot in some insignificant corner of the universe
why does it matter? maybe it's better that way and maybe he can do other things as well, maybe it's impossible to do it another way, who gives a frick anyway that's clearly not the topic
>rather than emerge after billions of years
see above, again please stay on topic
>fine tuning gay OP
We shouldn’t only look at life that’s similar to the life we know. There could be combinations of the fundamental constants where our form of life is impossible, but other forms of life would emerge. For example, baryons make up matter in our universe, but as far as we know pentaquarks are unstable. It is possible that there are fundamental constants where baryons are unstable but pentaquarks make up life. Thus we don’t necessarily need fundamental constants that make baryons possible, even though they are the building blocks of life as we know it.
While popularly hypothetical, for the time being, humanity has no proof of the existence of any other universe. This is the only one we can observe. Without being able to observe other universes, we cannot objectively claim that this universe possesses specific factors that make it rare, or even uncommon. The fine tuning argument is the equivalent of intellectual fantasy cosplay.
The argument eats itself.
and it's still synchronized together and tuned to margins that are very small compared to the infinite other possibilities, that's like saying you didn't get lucky/the dice isn't rigged if you land on 6 with your dice 99999 times in a row because there may be other universes where dices commonly land on 6 99999 times in a row, we are not making probabilities based on fantastical and like you said, unproven other universes, otherwise what's the point of reasoning. And fine tuning is not the damned topic.
God is tuned to much slimmer margins tbh senpai.
>op getting wrecked ITT
im a christcuck but lmaoo
>handwaving every hole in his argument
midwit middle-school theist
God is Fake and Gay
Your argument disproves God lol
> There is no other answer than God. God is the force that moves these things, and he is eternal and self sufficient. Without God, you can either make ad infinitums by saying external forces are making them move this way, but you re only postponing the problem : What makes these forces make the atoms move this way? Etc etc ad infinitum.
god of the gaps
This thread proves than Deists >>>> Atheists
Based and high iq