Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Prove that god doesn't exist. (Proving a negative)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hello again everyone. I have a question about a question I've been running into a lot recently. Like the Topic title indicates. "Well, how can you prove that God doesn't exist?"

I have a lot of discussions with people, on other forums, friends, family, and acquaintances(for fun/practice). In the subjects I feel familiar enough to actually get into a debate with another person, things usually dissolve when I get hit with that question... I am unsure how to respond correctly. I tried the "burden of proof" line and got it retorted back to me. I essentially got lost in the question.

The best thing I came up with is stating "I can't disprove anything, because you haven't given me any arguments for me to refute." And that generally ends the discussion. I'd go deeper into the fallacy of negative proof, but I find it derails the current topic. And I find it hard to articulate my thoughts when things I see as rudimentary (Like some fallacies) and explain them in detail...

Any other ways of thinking, or answers to that dreaded(stupid?) question? For some reason that I can't put my finger on, I don't feel that response is 'rock solid' enough. Maybe I'm getting tricked by the fallacy itself, I may not even require a more in-depth answer.

Anyone have any pointers for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For a really cogent answer, see Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pages 30-33.

For a much less articulate answer, here I go. There are two answers (depending on the type of god being referred to). Typically, "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian god, which cannot exist because the very concept is self-contradictory. For a thing to exist, it must possess a specific identity. By contrast, the JudeoChristian god is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and everywhere all at once, i.e. is without limit, thus possessing no specific identity at all, i.e. is non-existent. At this point you can expect your opponents to fall back on some variant of the "greek God", by saying that God does indeed possess a specific identity and exists somewhere in the universe but nonetheless chooses to hide himself from our detection. The answer to this is that the assertion of that god's existence demands sensory evidence, or is to be dismissed as arbitrary. It is not a matter of disproving that god's existence, it is a matter of dismissing the very assertion out of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again everyone. I have a question about a question I've been running into a lot recently. Like the Topic title indicates. "Well, how can you prove that God doesn't exist?"

The only way I can think of proving that a specific thing does not exist is to show that the existence of that thing leads to a flat out logical contradiction. In this way "negatives" can be proven.

For example: The square root of two is not rational. You can't get any more negative than that. This says there does not exist a pair of integers m, n where n is not 0 and m, n have no common divisor except 1 such that

(m/n)^2 = 2.

The way it is done is to assume such a pair of integers m, n exist and infer from that assumption a flat out contradiction.

You can find a proof in just about any book on elementary number theory. If you have difficulty in finding one, I will be happy to prove this negative to you.

This is different from proving that a generalization is not true. The way to prove the negative of a general statement is to find a specific counter-example to that general statement. Such a proof is "direct", i.e. does not depend on a reductio ad absurdum.

To answer your specific question:

1. Define what you mean by God.

2. Show that assuming God (by your definition) exists leads to a contradiction.

Q.E.D.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example: The square root of two is not rational. You can't get any more negative than that.

I thought the term "rational" when applied to numbers means a number that can be expresses as the ratio of two other numbers. Thus for example 0.5=1/2, 1.5=3/2 and 6.6666666...=20/3. An irrational number would be one that cannot be so expressed, thus numbers like Pi and the square root of two are irrational numbers.

In any case, numbers are abstract, not concrete. Proofs that some kind of number doesn't exist make sense for two reasons: 1) such numbers may exist, 2) there is an infinity of numbers. So a proof relies on the properties of numbers to determine whether a particular kind of number exists or not.

For instance, we know that X^2+Y^2=Z^2. Therefore it makes sense to ask whether X^n+Y^n=Z^n where n is any number but 2 (or n<>2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the term "rational" when applied to numbers means a number that can be expresses as the ratio of two other numbers. Thus for example 0.5=1/2, 1.5=3/2 and 6.6666666...=20/3. An irrational number would be one that cannot be so expressed, thus numbers like Pi and the square root of two are irrational numbers.

rational (in mathematical context) means the ratio of two integers.

Since the question of whether a negative could be proven was asked without qualification (as to whether the proposition in question is abstract or not) I answered the question in the most general unqualified context. If one permits modus tolens then it is possible to prove negatives in the abstract context.

If one wishes to restrict the question to what exists in the real world, then the answer is not so simple. For example, does a magnetic monopole exist? I know of no proof of mathematical contradiction to the existence of a magnetic monopole. On the other hand no one has ever observed a magnetic monopole. A similar question could be asked of tachyons. The existence of tachyons, massive particles that must go faster than the speed of light does not contradict the theory of special relativity, but such a particle would not have a normal existence, one that is forward in time. I am not sure whether this unpleasantness constitutes an outright logical contradiction or not. So far, no tachyons have ever been detected.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you should be trying to show that god doesn't exist, I think you should be first dealing with their claims that he does exist. If you want to venture into strange waters, here's a suggested proof.

1. There is a unique god [arbitrary assumption]

2. That god is a giant pan of baked ziti [arbitrary assumption]

3. Their god (Jehoover) is not a giant pan of baked ziti [just ask them]

4. Ergo their god doesn't exist.

If they object to any of the assumptions, you can ask them to prove that those assumptions are false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, does a magnetic monopole exist? I know of no proof of mathematical contradiction to the existence of a magnetic monopole. On the other hand no one has ever observed a magnetic monopole.

But there is a reason to believe magnetic monopoles may exist. Eventually we'll either find some, or theory will be refined to show they cannot exist.

The crucial detail is that monopoles are not an arbitrary assertion. An honest physicist would tell you he thinks they may exist but there is no proof as yet. He would not say he thinks they exist and you can't disprove it.

Does God exist? Or Ra, for that matter? Or Shiva, or the Great Spaghetti Monster? Well, there's no evidence to their existence, there is no reason to suppose they may even exist. So the burden of proof lies with those claiming God exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is a reason to believe magnetic monopoles may exist. Eventually we'll either find some, or theory will be refined to show they cannot exist.

The crucial detail is that monopoles are not an arbitrary assertion. An honest physicist would tell you he thinks they may exist but there is no proof as yet. He would not say he thinks they exist and you can't disprove it.

Does God exist? Or Ra, for that matter? Or Shiva, or the Great Spaghetti Monster? Well, there's no evidence to their existence, there is no reason to suppose they may even exist. So the burden of proof lies with those claiming God exists.

God is not something in the natural order. Does it exist? Does it not exist? There is no evidence indicating it exists? And if one assumes extreme things about this God, such as omnipotence, then one easily derives a contradiction. Here is an old saw:

A: You say God is ominipotent?

B: Yes, I do.

A: You say He can do anything?

B: Yes.

A: Can this God make a stone so big that He can not lift it?

Badaboom. Rim shot.

So omnipotence is out, since it leads to a contradiction.

And so forth. The problem is, when people talk of God they literally do not know what they are talking about, so anything one says is arbitrary blather.

I think the question of God's existence is a pseudo question. Like: does a Fnerd exist? Who knows? Who cares? and What is a Fnerd?

If one is going to ask existence questions, then they should be restricted to things whose existence is not prima facia absurd.

ruveyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is not something in the natural order. Does it exist? Does it not exist? There is no evidence indicating it exists? And if one assumes extreme things about this God, such as omnipotence, then one easily derives a contradiction. Here is an old saw:

A: You say God is ominipotent?

B: Yes, I do.

A: You say He can do anything?

B: Yes.

A: Can this God make a stone so big that He can not lift it?

Badaboom. Rim shot.

So omnipotence is out, since it leads to a contradiction.

You underestimate the perversity that theists could resort to. Since omnipotence means that God can do anything, he isnt bound by the laws of the logic. So yes, he can make a stone so heavy that he cant lift it. But he can also lift it too.

(this argument is from Hans Reichenbach, I find it fairly humourous.)

Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently had a debate in my philosophy class with a theist dogmatically trying to argue that god exists. He started throwing crap like, since god exists outside this universe, the same laws don't apply to him. (The really annoying part was that he kept capitalizing "He" and "His" *rolls eyes*) Ok so that went nowhere.

As far as the "you can't prove a negative" this is and is not true. I have always wondered about this myself and then I came across a perfect example which I think was elsewhere on this forum. It was basically that I CAN prove that the statement "I have a Hydrogen Atom with two protons" is false. Because, by definition, a Hydrogen atom only has one proton (2 would be Helium). I'm sure this could also be applied to deity.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant possibly think of a completely rational and logical argument to prove god does or even does not exist. All this is is speculation, you can disprove/prove certain gods exist, but you cannot go any farther than that. Who knows the true nature of a potential god except for its self?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I can think of proving that a specific thing does not exist is to show that the existence of that thing leads to a flat out logical contradiction. In this way "negatives" can be proven.

For example: The square root of two is not rational. You can't get any more negative than that. This says there does not exist a pair of integers m, n where n is not 0 and m, n have no common divisor except 1 such that

(m/n)^2 = 2.

The way it is done is to assume such a pair of integers m, n exist and infer from that assumption a flat out contradiction.

You can find a proof in just about any book on elementary number theory. If you have difficulty in finding one, I will be happy to prove this negative to you.

This is different from proving that a generalization is not true. The way to prove the negative of a general statement is to find a specific counter-example to that general statement. Such a proof is "direct", i.e. does not depend on a reductio ad absurdum.

ruveyn

when n isn't 0.

Monotheists say god is the beggining and the end, that is +∞ and -∞ , both rational numbers :S . If anything, god should be 0. Not the past nor the future, but the cycle of stagnation (agriculutre) for the respect for the unknown.

When they equate God to Truth , there you can see their contradiction. Reasoning, processing human and technological senses is what brings us truth and we take it as partial as it is, because we don't fear not being able to know everything. It only makes us hungrier. Theists on the other hand set a limit to what they are willing to know when they shut their will to reason, and call the wildcard god, or zero.

not all mysticism is the same it would be radically different to convince christian, jew, or moslem monotheist, a marxist, a papuan animist, or a Holywood Nihilist (bhuda?) out of their rite and dogma, which is what religion and magic are based upon. IT's a TOOL, it's psychological engineering: utilitarism.

And while I know history is made by the minorities I sometimes wonder whether humans could have rose from apes without that little advantage of sacrifying populaton. When you're big and strong you can produce enough, but when extinction is a possibility cannibalism doesn't sound that bad. It just evades hierarchy to condemn past altuism and mysticism.

What I Do believe is that the momentum generated by past roten philosophies is indeed very destructive, causing backsets like the many dark ages, but it would have been ackward if we humans had advanced in a platonically perfectly exponential way. The bumps in the trend make existence real, not Platonic.

If that had happen, If we lived in a world of perfect spheres, I gues that should be the "proof" that god exists. (not in this universe)

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the subjects I feel familiar enough to actually get into a debate with another person, things usually dissolve when I get hit with that question... I am unsure how to respond correctly. I tried the "burden of proof" line and got it retorted back to me. I essentially got lost in the question.

There's nowhere to get lost, though - you're at an axiomatic dead-end. I agree with David Odden that you have to throw the question badk at them, but I don't think logical proofs are the method; remember, you're dealing with faith here, not reason. I'd try a little Columbo routine, assuming the conversation goes something like this:

Him - "Prove that God doesn't exist."

Me - "I can't, because it's an impossible task. The burden of proof is on you, since you claim *He does."

Him - "You're claiming he doesn't; the burden of proof is on you."

Me - "Well, I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps you can help: can you prove to me that Santa Claus isn't real?"

* I only use the capitalization to denote what I'm referencing. It is not intended as a sign of respect.

Or, you could try changing the rules of the argument. He's got you at a philosophical dead-end, and you don't know how to respond because there is no way to respond. So, step out of the metaphysical issue of God's existence/nonexistence, and step into the epistemic realm of his belief in God. This puts him in a defensive position:

Him - "Prove that God doesn't exist."

Me - "I can't do that, but without any proof - something that cannot be explained by anything other than by God's alleged existence - I can't believe He exists. How do you know He does?"

- -

Don't worry about "winning" the argument or convincing the other person; that just isn't going to happen. For every answer, explanation, or analysis you offer, they're going to have their own answers. They won't be rational ones, but they'll be whatever the person needs to think in order to maintain his belief.

Edited by Lemuel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're all going way deeper than you need to. This overused question can be answered by asking a religious person to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russel's Teapot don't exist. Better yet, make up your own mock deity...say, an ice cream stand on Jupiter.

Trying to logically disprove a religious person's God is an exercise in futility, for two reasons. Firstly, they will just deny that the God you have logically disproved is their own, or else they will tie logic into a pretzel trying to show that you haven't really proved anything. Secondly, they will say something to the effect of "God is outside of logic."

I find that a reductio ad absurdum works far better than an actual tautology, in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You underestimate the perversity that theists could resort to. Since omnipotence means that God can do anything, he isnt bound by the laws of the logic. So yes, he can make a stone so heavy that he cant lift it. But he can also lift it too.

(this argument is from Hans Reichenbach, I find it fairly humourous.)

I agree that the irrationality of these theists is underestimated a lot. I went to Christian Schools from PreSchool until 9th grade, and argued with most of the teachers about religion. Don't get me wrong, many were great teachers, it was just the religion teachers mostly that were... unqualified, to say the least. The point is, most of the arguements would end with them saying "it's a matter of faith." To which I would reply "if I told you that there was a unicorn that I could only see standing in the middle of the highway while we were driving, would you stop the car?" Based on their bastardized methods of "thought," they would. But their answer was no, due to the fact that they don't think. They feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time the existence of God is a problem for me is when our government tries to use him to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. In the case of America, we are talking about Jesus Christ. Are we talkingabout a man, possibly a prophet or a bringer of hell and damnation? I doubt that in the history of earth any man has caused the number of wars or the number of nations who base their laws on this same warrior of hell.

At the age of 9, I disregarded this silly concept of being able to sin and then ask for forgiveness. It made people untrustworthy and the older I got, the worse these Christians became. I have a simple mind that wanted only to read more books. We lived 3 blocks from our public library and I dissolved into the entire place. I thought that Christians had to have been the dumbest group ever evolved. They took the words from a single source and massacred millions of other people who had another killer God.

I made a point to learn about these sins and came up that they were many that simply desecrated nature and other living things. It was too easy and I set up my own rules of right and wrong. I needed no ghost or books written by other men and gave it no more thought. In the early 1960's I found Rand and felt an immediate kinship. My husband and I heard her speak in person at the Shrine Auditorium. I did not need anyone to confirm my Atheism but it was nice to know that a brilliant woman indeed did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not your job to prove against, it is their job to prove for. If they give no proof, then they make a logical fault and succumb to a bare assertion fallacy. Not that it bothers them. They're used to living a bare assertion. They call it faith.

I was raised secular. We never went to church, ever. I was forced to go when I stayed with my aunt. The guy at sunday school told me that if I came to his church every sunday I could play play-station forever in heaven. Sweet jesus, that sounded too good to be true. The totalitarian nature of Christianity disgusted me to no end. In the end, I looked at the stories of God and history. Why would God kill a bunch of gay people at Sodom... and not Hitler? That made no sense.

As I grew smarter, my hatred for Christianity grew stronger. For a few years I bounced between atheism, agnosticism, and deism. I'm now a staunch anti-theist and pantheists (in the Richard Dawkins sense).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm now a staunch anti-theist and pantheists (in the Richard Dawkins sense).

I dont know what kind of a pantheist you are, but i have never understood really what it is? I may be ignorant, but could someone explain to me.....

Why wouldnt pantheists just call the universe=the universe, nature=nature and existence=existence? What is the value of calling these things God, by which they mean an abstraction and not a personal god, and that does not possess any supernatural powers. This god did not create anything, it does not command anyone to do anything, it does not judge, in fact it does not do anything at all.... What is the value of calling existence god, instead of existence?

What is the difference between an objectivists view of reality compared to a pantheists, other than the fact that we use different names for the same thing? And why arent pantheists called atheists?

Its like someone saying: I watch basketball, i like it a lot. However, by me watching basketball, i do not mean watching an activity where two teams consisting of five players try to score points by throwing a ball into a round basket, while the other team tries to prevent the other team from doing that. Because that i do not want to watch. Still, i watch basketball....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wouldnt pantheists just call the universe=the universe, nature=nature and existence=existence? What is the value of calling these things God, by which they mean an abstraction and not a personal god, and that does not possess any supernatural powers. This god did not create anything, it does not command anyone to do anything, it does not judge, in fact it does not do anything at all.... What is the value of calling existence god, instead of existence?

I see it as a way to reconcile religious terminology with concepts that actually exist. In a way it's bringing their supernatural ideas back to the natural world. It helps me argue with theists better.

What is the difference between an objectivists view of reality compared to a pantheists, other than the fact that we use different names for the same thing? And why arent pantheists called atheists?

I claim to be an objectivist but also a pantheist, I don't see any difference in the view of reality. I don't think they contradict each other so it should be alright (unless I'm mistaken, then I will be an objectivist only). As I said before, my pantheism acts merely as a reconciliation of terminology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I claim to be an objectivist but also a pantheist, I don't see any difference in the view of reality. I don't think they contradict each other so it should be alright (unless I'm mistaken, then I will be an objectivist only). As I said before, my pantheism acts merely as a reconciliation of terminology.

You're mistaken. Objectivism is only compatible with atheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as a way to reconcile religious terminology with concepts that actually exist. In a way it's bringing their supernatural ideas back to the natural world. It helps me argue with theists better.

But what is the value of "reconciling religious terminology". What is the value of calling reality, nature, existence with the term God.

I claim to be an objectivist but also a pantheist, I don't see any difference in the view of reality. I don't think they contradict each other so it should be alright (unless I'm mistaken, then I will be an objectivist only). As I said before, my pantheism acts merely as a reconciliation of terminology.

What i argue is that you are an atheist, who just for some reason calls existence, nature etc. God instead of calling them by their real names. And that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Pantheism still has the theism in it, and by theism we usually mean belief in a deity(or many), that posess supernatural powers, and are supreme beings. If you have some alternative explanation on the what the word theism means, please tell me.

I just cant understand the value of giving validity to the religious nuts to believe in a God, by yourself calling the universe God, even though you mean completely the opposite by this word.

Just like the belief in unicorns. We have

"unicornists" - those who believe in that unicorns, magical horselike creatures with horns on their forehead, exist

a-unicornists - those who do not believe in unicorns & those who affirm that unicorns do not exist

agnostics - those who do not "know" whether unicorns exist

In this case, what would the value be of calling yourself a

horse-unicornist - those who affirm that there are no horselike creatures with horns on their forehead, but that what they mean by the term unicorn is actually everything that encompasses a horses organs, blood circulation system, bones, hair etc. In other words, what they mean, is a horse, but they call them unicorns.

Why not call yourself an a-unicornist, and call horses horses?

You're mistaken. Objectivism is only compatible with atheism.

Exactly, but i think he really is one....

The only explanation for why people call themselves pantheists, would be if they had been raised really religiously, and the idea of a God was so ingrained in their upbringing that they have found it necessary to redefine the word God, once they realized that their Christian/Muslim etc. beliefs were BS, because they are not capable for some reason to give up on the idea of God.....

But still, what is the value of calling yourself a pantheist, if the only thing how it differs from atheism, is that it has different words for some things.....

edit: slightly off-topic, but as i was browsing different articles on wikipedia i found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion scroll down to the "Notable antireligious people" part and you will find:

Ayn Rand, novelist and libertarian philosopher, critic of homosexuality, founder of the objectivist school of metaphysics, famous for writing Atlas Shrugged and The Virtue of Selfishness.

first of all, the libertarian part obviously struck my eye, but what is weird is that "critic of homosexuality" is listed in such a short summation of Ayn Rand. Sure, she was a critic, but that is not in any way a cornerstone of her philosophy, so why would someone add it in such a short summation.....

Edited by JJJJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Pantheist I really meant that I just dig the universe. That I am a reality worshiper. I don't see the problem with this in terms of Objectivism. I may be using the term wrong. I really, really, am an atheist, I just dig reality and tend wax poetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia:

(Greek: πάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεός ( 'theos' ) = God, it literally means "God is All" and "All is God".) Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.
Doesn't sound like "Pantheist" is a good term to describe someone who rejects the concept of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Pantheist I really meant that I just dig the universe. That I am a reality worshiper. I don't see the problem with this in terms of Objectivism. I may be using the term wrong. I really, really, am an atheist, I just dig reality and tend wax poetic.

Yeah, i just dont see the value of "All is God"/"God is All", instead of "All is All". Also, i must obviously mention here, that we are talking about naturalistic pantheism here, if it hasnt been mentioned already, as there are many other types of pantheism, that clearly believe in the supernatural etc.

This is really difficult for me to debate, because im really not sure what im debating here. Becuase it still seems like calling the universe God, doesnt make any sense....

If you want to differentiate yourself from relativist or "there is no reality"-type atheists, i wouldnt recommend using the word pantheist. I think the word Objectivist is quite sufficient in describing "what kind of" atheist you are.

I think the wikipedia article on Naturalistic pantheism, has one very telling paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism

Naturalistic pantheism places little emphasis on the concept of God. This raises the concern that it is really no longer pantheism at all, but something more like "spiritual naturalism" or "feel-good atheism". After all, these critics ask, if you remove the concept of God from your philosophy, what is the purpose of using the term "pantheism?" It is charged that the etymology of the word reveals it is inappropriately used in describing an anti-theist philosophy.In answer to this objection, naturalistic pantheists maintain that the "pan-" prefix modifies the "-theism" suffix to such an extent that pantheism in fact has little to do with traditional theism.

The fact that someone thinks that the prefix "pan-", that means "all", or in this case "all is", somehow modifies the suffix after it is totally absurd? How does the statement "All is God", modify the meaning of "God"?

also in the same article:

An argument intended to show that the term "pantheism" remains appropriate for the modern, or naturalistic interpretation of pantheism is that the contemporary pantheist sees the term "God" as a synonym for "nature". If nature is equivalent to the theological concept of God, then saying "all is God" (pan-theism) is the same as saying "all is nature". Accordingly, this is the way that many pantheists choose to view the term "pantheism" — all is nature, nature is all. Pantheism, then, is (in this view) essentially a form of spirituality based on nature rather than on supernatural entities such as deities. Accordingly, it is widely accepted that the modern interpretation of pantheism is essentially naturalistic, and therefore constitutes a form of naturalistic spirituality.

If "all is nature", then "all is nature". If you want to base your spirituality on nature instead of deities, then dont use the word of a deity, God, but use the word for nature, that is......ummmm.....let me think.....NATURE!

I really cant wrap my head around this, because im not even sure what im trying to debate here. Its like someone called baseball basketball, but still meant baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

first of all, the libertarian part obviously struck my eye, but what is weird is that "critic of homosexuality" is listed in such a short summation of Ayn Rand. Sure, she was a critic, but that is not in any way a cornerstone of her philosophy, so why would someone add it in such a short summation.....

It is non-essential, but it is a view that Miss Rand held and thus valid, although there are MANY here who evade that fact. I personally think the evasion of that fact is many, many times more immoral than homosexuality could ever be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...