• Dfpolis
    907
    Let’s start by clearing up some confusion. (1) While some people may think of God as an old man in the sky, that is not the notion of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, nor that addressed by Aristotle or the Buddhist Logicians. For us, God is an Infinite being. (2) “Infinite Being” does not mean, “really big and powerful being.” It means completely unlimited being.

    Dynamic Ontology

    Dynamic ontology is built on the notion of being can be explicated as the capacity to act. A finite being can act limited ways, and an Infinite Being can do any possible act. Finite beings can act in this way, but not that; here, but not there; now, but not then. Infinite being can act in all possible ways in all pos­sible places at all possible times. So we are not God and have forgotten it, because forgetting is a limitation on our ability to think. Nor is the universe God because it is constrained by the laws of nature, which are more restrictive than what is logically pos­sible.

    Dynamic ontology helps us understand the distinction of essence and existence. Essence, what a thing is, is the specification of its possible acts. But, a specification does not normally entail that what we specified actually exists. Existence adds a new note of comprehension: that the thing we are talking about can act in reality. Not only does it have a specification, but that specification is operational. Perhaps an analogy will help. Essence is like a photo­graphic slide. It specifies the picture on the screen, but there is no picture on the screen until the slide is illuminated. Existence is like the light illuminating the slide. It makes the projected picture actual.

    Background

    To prove existence we need to show the capacity to act. We can only show this by pointing out a concrete act that must be attributed to the being in question. We know concrete acts only through experience.

    Thinking something does not make it exist. So “proofs” such as St. Anselm’s ontological argument fail because they only prove that if we define God as the greatest possible being, then we must think of God as existing. But, thinking of God as existing does not make God exist. We can think something in two ways – with commitment to the thought and without commitment. The ontological argument does not show that we must be committed to the thought that God exists, but only that to be consistent, in the context of the definition, we must think of God as existing.

    We can only prove what we know implicitly. Proofs show us how to assemble facts we already know to see something we may not have noticed. So, we can only prove God's existence if knowledge of it is implicit in experience. People with good intuition can see it directly, but may not be able to articulate it for others. Those of us who are less intuitive, or who trust intuition less, need step-by-step guidance to come to the same conclusion. A proof will make the connections needed for us to be aware of God in our experience.

    Finally, this proof assumes a working knowledge of logic that not all may possess. For example, the Principle of Excluded Middle tells us that complete disjunctions like “A is either B or not B” are always true if they are meaningful.

    The Proof

    Premise 1: Something exists.
    This is a fact of experience. At least I exist (cogito ergo sum), so let’s take our self to be concrete.
    Premise 2: Whatever exists is either finite or infinite.
    This is a complete disjunction. Remember that “finite” means limited in ability. I am finite because I can’t do everything that's logically possible, but only what is physically possible for me.
    Premise 3: Any collection of finite beings, including the universe as a whole, is finite in being.
    Again, finite does not mean quantitatively finite, but limited in its ability to act. Even the whole universe is limited in its ability to act. If it were not, logical possibility would be the same as physical possibility and physics identical to logic. There are logically possible acts that the universe cannot do. Since it has finite dimensionality, the directions in which its parts can move are limited. It is logically possible to move in more directions, and so the universe is at least limited in this way. Even if the universe were spatially or numerically infinite, it would still have a limited capacity to act. Since the universe (or multiverse if you subscribe to it) is the largest possible collection of finite beings, any smaller collection will also be finite.
    Premise 4: If a being exists, its explanation must exist.
    If this were not true, science would be impossible. If things "just happened," the observations would not be underlying dynamics, and could neither confirm nor falsify hypotheses. Note that “explanation” has two senses: (1) the fact(s) that make some state of affairs be as it is. (We may or may not know these.) This is the sense I am using. (2) Our attempt to articulate our understanding of (1). This is not the sense I am using here.
    Premise 5: If something exists, its existence is explained either by itself or by another.
    Given that explanations exist, this is a complete disjunction: the explanation is the thing in question, or not the thing in question.
    Premise 6: A finite being cannot explain its own existence.
    Why? Because whatever can be explained by a being, viz. whatever a being can do, results from its essence, the specification of its acts. For a finite being, existence, the unspecified power to act, is logically distinct from its specification. I am human and I exist. Being human explains my ability to think, because that is part of what it is to be human. But, being human does not imply that I exist. If it did, no human could cease existing.
    A thing is finite because its specification or essence limits its capacity to act, its existence. What limits is not what is limited, viz. existence, the bare capacity to act – just as a slide limiting light differs from the light it limits. Logically, limits negate specific acts, while existence does the opposite, making acts operational. When essence limits existence, existence is more comprehensive. Something less comprehensive, a finite essence, cannot entail something more comprehensive – existence. Thus, a finite essence cannot entail existence -- a finite being cannot explain its own existence.
    The distinction of essence from existence does not apply to an infinite being, if it exists. Why? Because an infinite being’s capac­ity to act is not limited by what it is. For it, no possible act is negated by its specification. So for an infinite being, what-it-is would be identical with that-it-is.

    Further explanation of Premises 4, 5, and 6:
    A being is necessary when it is. (Once it is now, it is no longer possible for it not to be now.) Since finite beings have a history of coming into and going out of existence, the necessity of their present existence is not intrinsic. (It is possible for them not to be.) So it must derive something extrinsic – their explanation. Therefore, every actual thing has an explanation even if we are ignorant of it and say, “It just is.” Our verbal explanation is not true unless there is it reflects reality.

    Conclusions
    Conclusion 1: The existence of a finite being implies the existence of another being, its explanation. P4, P5, P6.
    Conclusion 2: This other being cannot ultimately be finite. P3, P6
    Any collection of finite beings, taken as a whole, is itself finite and so requires a further explanation.
    Conclusion 3: So, the existence of a finite being implies the existence of an infinite being, as its explanation. C2, P2.
    Conclusion 4: Therefore an infinite being exists, which we call “God.” C3, P1.
    We are free to name things as we wali, but calling the infinite being “God” corresponds to common usage.

    All of the commonly ascribed attributes of God (almighty, omniscient, etc.) follow from God's unlimited capacity to act. For example, if God were not omniscient, then there would be a logically possible act, reflecting on an item of information, which God could not do. If God knows, God thinks and so is personal in the sense of being aware, etc.

    Note that this does not show God as existing and acting in only the past, but as the present and on-going explanation of all existence.
  • tim wood
    3.4k
    ...working...
  • tim wood
    3.4k
    “Infinite Being”... means completely unlimited being.Dfpolis
    Because an infinite being’s capac­ity to act is not limited by what it is. For it, no possible act is negated by its specification.Dfpolis
    A usual formulation is that God can do anything not contradictory. Yes? No? You have:
    A being is necessary when it is. (Once it is now, it is no longer possible for it not to be now.)Dfpolis
    I assume that as an "infinite" being God is, now - exists. If that is so, then on your definition God could not exist now, at the same time he exists. He could exist and not exist, be and not be, at the same time (assuming "same time" is meaningful).

    That leads back to the God who can do anything not contradictory. Which itself means that God is limited, which throws us back to the definition of God as infinite, as opposed to finite. It also appears an equivalent difficulty if instead of non-contradictory we use possible/not possible. If "no possible act is negated by its specification," then either his non-being is possible, or if not possible, then this God is not, per definition, infinite.

    ------

    Any collection of finite beings, including the universe as a whole, is finite in being.Dfpolis
    "Again, finite does not mean quantitatively finite, but limited in its ability to act."

    Implies God is neither in nor of the universe. Nor in any way whether partially or wholly. Whatever part of God that is in the universe would necessarily be a part of some collection of things in the universe, therefore finite. Unless the universe itself includes infinite beings, but then we could not say "including the universe as a whole."... Or even if we could, then we might have a problem in limiting the number of Gods to one: why one? It would seem there would have to be very many, an infinite number, of Gods.

    ------

    Does God have location? And if location, accidents? E.g. here and not there, or, both here and there. In as much as God can do anything(?) he can sometimes be not there. That would imply that at that place, that there, at that time, there is no God. But that would limit God's capacity to act, in that he could not act there, then.

    -----

    And so it goes. Fate and randomness coming up! Quantum issues and definition(s) of "being" on the horizon.
  • Echarmion
    985


    Your concept of "explanation" seems under-defined to me. You reference science, but that's a method that generates a specific kind of explanation. It's hard to judge your premises 4 to 6 without a clear definition of "explanation".

    The way your argument is structured right now, I cannot see how premise 4 is justified. Having an explanation is certainly nice, but I fail to see how it would be necessary.

    Similarly, your justification for premise 6 does not convince me. For one, it seems contradictory to state that:
    So for an infinite being, what-it-is would be identical with that-it-is.Dfpolis
    When you earlier (and correctly, I think) noted that existence is always distinct from essence. But regardless, your premise doesn't really follow from the justification. The existence of a finite being might still be unlimited in time, for example. Or finite beings might explain the existence of each other. These possibilities remain unexplored.

    Moving on to the conclusions, you never specify why the explanation for a being needs to be another being, nor why finite beings cannot explain each other. So your conclusions seem to hang in the air.

    Ultimately, it looks to me like you are reformulating the "first cause" argument, but I cannot see the advantages of your take.
  • Theologian
    160

    The OP is quite lengthy and complex. My off the cuff response is that there are a number of things in your proof that do seem problematic to me. The stand-out would be:

    Premise 4: If a being exists, its explanation must exist.
    If this were not true, science would be impossible. If things "just happened," the observations would not be underlying dynamics, and could neither confirm nor falsify hypotheses. Note that “explanation” has two senses: (1) the fact(s) that make some state of affairs be as it is. (We may or may not know these.) This is the sense I am using. (2) Our attempt to articulate our understanding of (1). This is not the sense I am using here.
    Dfpolis

    It is to your credit that you state this premise explicitly. But this does not mean that it is unproblematic.

    Science does not require that literally everything have explanation. Science only requires that some things have explanation.

    Much of physics, as an intellectual project, has been an attempt to determine the fundamental laws of the universe. If there are fundamental laws, by definition they are unexplained. They are simply "brute facts." Today's brute fact may be tomorrow's well explained phenomena (witness what Einstein did for Newtonian gravity), but at any one time there is a base level of explanation. Acceptance of the idea that explanation has to end somewhere is quite widespread among both scientists and philosophers, and science works perfectly well on this level.

    I am not going to say that there are brute facts. I am going to say that it is not a self evident truth that there are not - and since you're the one offering the proof, the burden is on you.

    If brute facts are not for you, you also do not seem to consider the possibility of antifoundationalist infinite regress, in which every finite explanation has another finite explanation... and so on forever. "Turtles all the way down," as it were.

    Another unconsidered possibility here is that of an Escher-esque universe that is ontologically circular. To provide a concrete example of this, consider the following extract from the SEP's entry on time travel:

    Gödel. The time traveller steps into an ordinary rocket ship (not a special time machine) and flies off on a certain course. At no point does she disappear (as in Leap) or ‘turn back in time’ (as in Putnam)—yet thanks to the overall structure of spacetime (as conceived in the General Theory of Relativity), the traveller arrives at a point in the past (or future) of her departure. (Compare the way in which someone can travel continuously westwards, and arrive to the east of her departure point, thanks to the overall curved structure of the surface of the earth.)Smith, Nicholas J.J.

    So you can pick up the collected works of Shakespeare from Amazon, go back in time, and hand them to Shakespeare, who is then spared of the chore of ever having to actually write them. It may or may not be allowed by the laws of physics. It may be mind-bending. But it is generally accepted that there is nothing incoherent in this. It is not a priori clear that it is not possible. And bear in mind, of course, that this is just a concrete, physical example of what I'm talking about.

    Finally, the logical possibility of this kind of circularity brings us to premise six. You argue:

    Being human explains my ability to think, because that is part of what it is to be human. But, being human does not imply that I exist. If it did, no human could cease existing.Dfpolis

    I'm afraid I can't agree. To be human (or to be anything at all) is to exist. You can't be human if you don't exist. So to be human does imply that you exist. To imply existence is not to imply unceasing existence. If it did, everything that existed would exist forever, which is clearly not the case.

    These are just off the cuff thoughts, of course.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    I don't accept premises 3, 4 or 5.

    3 is contrary to what most cosmologists believe, which is that the universe is infinite.

    4 and 5 are assertions of the existence of explanations, for which there is no logical need. The universe doesn't need an explanation.

    Further, I find the insistence that God must be omnipotent unnecessarily limiting, given the well-trodden logical problems with the notion of omnipotence. In my view, no god worth believing in is omnipotent (problem of evil, logical paradoxes regarding heavy stones and so forth) and, if there were such a god, humans would certainly not be in any sense in Her image.

    Advaita Vedanta has a pretty mind-blowing conception of God as a sort of cosmic consciousness (the 'We are God' path), but it doesn't need any gimmick as trite and MarvelUniverse-ish as Omnipotence to impress people.

    Nor is the attempt to rule out the universe as being God (pantheism), because of the 'laws of nature' convincing. The 'laws of nature' are regularities we have discovered that explain to a pretty good degree of accuracy what we see happening in our part of the universe, in the time periods we can observe. They say nothing about what might be happening elsewhere, or what might happen later. Since the universe is likely infinite, regularities discovered in this tiny finite part of it say nothing about what its nature and capabilities might be. It's quite possible that there are no universal laws of nature, and that everything that can be imagined (plus even more that can't) is happening somewhere (Tegmark's hypothesis)
  • Theologian
    160
    Further, I find the insistence that God must be omnipotent unnecessarily limiting, given the well-trodden logical problems with the notion of omnipotence. In my view, no god worth believing in is omnipotentandrewk

    Yes, even if one accepted this proof (which I don't) one must be careful about the implicit leap from

    completely unlimited beingDfpolis

    to any other characteristics traditionally assigned to God. To hand wave over this with a simple assurance that we are not talking about

    an old man in the skyDfpolis

    seems... problematic.
  • Theologian
    160
    Incidentally, another problem with the concept of God as

    completely unlimitedDfpolis

    ...is that as an explanatory concept, it's completely bankrupt. You have a theory that can explain literally anything. It's the absolute antithesis of falsifiable.

    So by being able to explain literally anything, your theory predicts nothing, and therefore explains nothing.

    I think this is the most fundamental problem with your proof.
  • Wayfarer
    8.8k
    While some people may think of God as an old man in the sky, that is not the notion of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, nor that addressed by Aristotle or the Buddhist Logicians.Dfpolis

    I don’t think you ought to appeal to Buddhism for support of this kind of argument. Buddhists only generally address the existence of God in order to dispute it (regardless of what universalists are inclined to say.)
  • TheMadFool
    4.2k
    Your main argument is:

    1. A finite entity can't explain itself
    So,
    2. There exists an infinite entity (God) that explains all finite entities

    I thought much of our knowledge framework is a work in progress. If history is researched we can see an ever increasing list of explanations, all finite, that make sense.

    In other words your argument depends on a premise (finite entities can't explain themselves) that is shaky because it rests on the mistaken certainty that the finite can't explain itself. Look at the progress science has made. In fact it looks like your argument is simply a revamp of the God of the gaps argument.
  • fresco
    558
    Why do believers need 'proof' ?
    On the basis that 'proof', 'existence', 'thinghood', 'limit' and 'God' are all concepts with contextual utility, I suggest the main reason believers have for these (incestuous) word games is a 'belief reinforcement exercise' to shore up weaknesses in their 'utility insurance policy'.
  • Wayfarer
    8.8k
    Look at the progress science has made. In fact it looks like your argument is simply a revamp of the God of the gaps argument.TheMadFool

    I’m not overall in agreement with the OP, BUT I think this claim is deeply questionable. Yes, science has made progress in some respects - certainly in terms of technological and medical invention, of which there can be no doubt. But scientific cosmology and even the basic nature of matter itself is often and widely said to be in a state of crisis, and there are raging controversies over the reality or otherwise of many universes, parallel universes, and so on, none which seem remotely solvable in our lifetime. Now of course that is not in itself an argument for theism, but you can’t gesture towards science as an argument against it, either!
  • TheMadFool
    4.2k
    I’m not overall in agreement with the OP, BUT I think this claim is deeply questionable. Yes, science has made progress in some respects - certainly in terms of technological and medical invention, of which there can be no doubt. But scientific cosmology and even the basic nature of matter itself is often and widely said to be in a state of crisis, and there are raging controversies over the reality or otherwise of many universes, parallel universes, and so on, none which seem remotely solvable in our lifetime. Now of course that is not in itself an argument for theism, but you can’t gesture towards science as an argument against it, eitherWayfarer

    Correct. I was just pointing out the flaw in the OP argument which is that the finite can't explain itself; it's an open question that has no satisfactory answer at the moment. If you look at how religion has lost ground to science you'll notice the point I was trying to make.

    Anyway thanks for the gentle warning.
  • Theologian
    160
    Don't forget: the OP is talking about God as not only infinite, but as completely unlimited.

    Harking back to my previous post, I would say that only that which is limited in at least some respect is capable of offering any explanation at all.

    Sure, whatever happens the completely unlimited can allow you to tell some kind of story about it. But to call this story an "explanation" is a semantic sleight of hand.

    Because the completely unlimited is equally capable of "explaining" literally anything, it predicts nothing. It's the absolute antithesis of falsifiable. It has literally no ability to tell you why any particular thing exists or occurs, as opposed to any other particular thing - or indeed, no particular thing at all.

    Why does the sun continue to shine in the sky rather than waft gently down to Earth, offer you a Vienna coffee, and then begin discussing logical positivism? The completely unlimited can't tell you.

    Zero explanation.

    To choose my words a little more carefully so as to avoid the apparent paradox inherent in my previous formulation, in its superficially apparent ability to explain literally anything, the completely unlimited actually explains nothing.
  • Devans99
    2.1k
    Premise 6: A finite being cannot explain its own existenceDfpolis

    A finite being outside of time has no need to explain its own existence, it is beyond causality, it just 'IS'.

    I am not going to say that there are brute facts. I am going to say that it is not a self evident truth that there are not - and since you're the one offering the proof, the burden is on you.Theologian

    A finite being outside of time is a brute fact. This I believe is the actual nature of God.

    Premise 2: Whatever exists is either finite or infinite.Dfpolis

    I would argue that infinite (unlimited ability to act) is self-contradictory in a finite universe.

    'square circles exist or they don't' - complete disjunction so true.
    'square circles exist ' - contradictory

    'Whatever exists is either finite or infinite' - complete disjunction so true.
    'The infinite exists' - contradictory (could a completely unlimited being exist in a finite universe?)

    The rest of the proof assumes that an infinite being is possible; it needs to be demonstrated that an infinite being is not a logical contradiction.
  • god must be atheist
    1k
    Since finite beings have a history of coming into and going out of existence,Dfpolis

    Finite things have NOT been known for a history of coming into and going out of existence. At all.

    I am a human; I have come into existence, will pass out of existence. But my component parts, matter, have not gone in-and-out of existence. I, the human, am a complex configuration of matter; the configuration may and does change, matter never perishes or or comes into existence (other than changing forms, and changing to-and-fro energy to matter, matter to energy).

    I call you out on this assumption. In my opinion it is wrong.
  • god must be atheist
    1k
    Premise 6: A finite being cannot explain its own existence.
    Why? Because whatever can be explained by a being, viz. whatever a being can do, results from its essence, the specification of its acts. For a finite being, existence, the unspecified power to act, is logically distinct from its specification. I am human and I exist. Being human explains my ability to think, because that is part of what it is to be human. But, being human does not imply that I exist. If it did, no human could cease existing.
    Dfpolis

    several problems with this paragraph.

    All existing humans exist.
    I am a human.
    Therefore I exist.

    I don't know how you can conclude, from the same premises

    All existing humans exist.
    I am human.
    Therefore I don't exist.

    Your reasoning is wrong in he sense that humans exist in a temporal fashion. But they do exist when they do. Therefore your premise fails on this turn:
    "Being human explains my ability to think, because that is part of what it is to be human. But, being human does not imply that I exist. If it did, no human could cease existing."
    Being human implies that you currently exist. It does not exclude the possibility that you came into being or that you will exit into nihil. But the current state of affairs is that you exist. Therefore your conclusion in this premise, or the reason you argue for us to accept the premise, is wrong.
  • god must be atheist
    1k
    Because whatever can be explained by a being, viz. whatever a being can do, results from its essence, the specification of its acts.Dfpolis

    You are using the QED as your premise. It's called "begging the conclusion" or something like that fallacy.

    If specifications exist, then there is a creator. So you assume there is a creator. You use this assumption to say there is a creator. But the assumption is random, it is not well-grounded; and more importantly, the assumption pre-requires the object of your proof to exist.

    In other words: you use something that you accept as a premise, to prove that it exists. That is wrong.
  • Theologian
    160
    I would argue that infinite (unlimited ability to act) is self-contradictory in a finite universe.Devans99

    I don't personally buy either your theology or that of @Dfpolis. My own chosen moniker is a kind of private joke, and essentially ironic. But that said, I do think there is a problem with this argument.

    Specifically, that the "God" philosophers have traditionally talked about is not seen as existing inside the universe, but as beyond it: eternal and uncreated, as it were. In keeping with this tradition, you yourself describe God as a

    being outside of timeDevans99

    Yet placing God, or at least God's ability to act, wholly inside this universe seems to be a premise of your argument. Remember: post Einstein, time is very much a part of the fabric of this universe. So it is difficult to say that God exists outside of time and yet is somehow constrained by the limits of the universe.
  • andrewk
    2.1k
    indeed. It seems to me that the people who worry over trying to prove the existence of their particular conception of God are just demonstrating their lack of faith - a lack that the Christian God does not look too kindly on!

    I think the same goes for people who try to disprove God. I think it stems from a fear that there may really be a God that punishes those who do not believe in It, so they attempt to keep the fear at bay by proofs.

    Personally I just rely on faith. My faith is that
    (1) most of us (including me) will be unable to ever know whether there is a God - at least in this life;
    (2) most of us (including me) will be unable to know what God is like if She is there; and
    (3) if there is a God, and She has anything remotely like personal characteristics, She is wise and kind, and nothing at all like the cruel, vain, childish, violent personality described in the holy books of the three Abrahamic religions. Like all good friends, She is not to be feared, obeyed or worshipped. But She may be loved.
  • Theologian
    160
    if there is a God, and She has anything remotely like personal characteristics, She is wise and kind, and nothing at all like the cruel, vain, childish, violent personality described in the holy books of the three Abrahamic religions.andrewk

    Given the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves, why on Earth would you conclude that?

    The Abrahamic God, whatever else you might say of Him, is surely infinitely more plausible than that.

    Although personally, I think the most plausible theology is Lovecraft's. Ironic, considering he never represented his own writings as anything other than fiction.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Let’s start by clearing up some confusion. (1) While some people may think of God as an old man in the sky, that is not the notion of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, nor that addressed by Aristotle or the Buddhist Logicians. For us, God is an Infinite being. (2) “Infinite Being” does not mean, “really big and powerful being.” It means completely unlimited being.Dfpolis

    One problem with this is that all of the major religions have a god that not only has the feelings of a person--the god is pleased or displeased, it has preferred states or preferred behavior for others, and so on--but usually it even speaks so that we can quote things it said.

    So what sort of thing is it supposed to be if it has those characteristics? It's natural to think of it as a person, because persons are the sorts of things that have those qualities.

    What are we supposedly quoting if not a person?
  • christian2017
    520


    lol. no comment. i'm going to be accused of trolling for this post but it might be best for me to get kicked off at this point. Have fun Theologian, but not too much fun :)

    Given the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves, why on Earth would you conclude that?

    The Abrahamic God, whatever else you might say of Him, is surely infinitely more plausible than that.

    Although personally, I think the most plausible theology is Lovecraft's. Ironic, considering he never represented his own writings as anything other than fiction.
    Theologian
  • Theologian
    160
    Yes, I was wondering what exactly @Dfpolis has in mind by the term "being." Although if God is completely unlimited in ability to act the point becomes moot, since that would include the ability to act in all the ways that one would attribute to a sentient being.
  • christian2017
    520
    I will be reading Lovecraft or atleast attempt too.
  • christian2017
    520


    I agree with what you wrote but you might want to expand on it to fill in the holes. I'm going to put in my journal and analyze it line by line.
  • christian2017
    520


    you are one of the most intelligent people i've come across on an online forum. Certainly much more intelligent than me. Do you know how to fix a car? I don't.
  • Theologian
    160
    Wow... thank you! That is extremely kind of you to say!

    But I'm afraid I wouldn't have the foggiest notion of how to go about fixing a car. Does that cost me virtual IQ points in your estimation?
  • christian2017
    520


    A few. Like i said, i can change oil but other than that i can't fix a car essentially. I just think in the day and age we live in fixing a car is a person's greatest asset. (top 10 atleast).

    Just my opinion.
  • christian2017
    520


    You mention lovecraft. The author was born in the same city where i had my first memory in life. I lived in providence Rhode Island at a young age. I love coincidences. This is pertinent to the OP because you mentioned Lovecraft.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment