Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

God of the Gaps

Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:14:30 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

What article? what link? how do I get to it?
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:16:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

The only impediment to the cyclical model is the idea of the exponential expansion of space, caused by dark energy, which shows no signs of stopping and is ever-increasing exponentially.

If the cyclical model can show why dark energy would stop expanding space, then I might buy it.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:17:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

http://thepowerofideas.com...
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:22:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 1:14:30 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

What article? what link? how do I get to it?

Sorry about that. Post 4. Study is 22 pages posted from Cornell.edu
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:23:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 1:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

http://thepowerofideas.com...

Quite interesting but I can only loosely follow the mathematics, wish I had more expertise and time. It seems their key breakthrough is avoiding a singularity though.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 1:31:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 1:23:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

http://thepowerofideas.com...

Quite interesting but I can only loosely follow the mathematics, wish I had more expertise and time. It seems their key breakthrough is avoiding a singularity though.

Yeah most here will stop with the initial link and not go to the published study. Then claim a refutation based on their limited understanding. I just don't know as we are learning more every day.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 10:55:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 1:31:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:23:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

http://thepowerofideas.com...

Quite interesting but I can only loosely follow the mathematics, wish I had more expertise and time. It seems their key breakthrough is avoiding a singularity though.

Yeah most here will stop with the initial link and not go to the published study. Then claim a refutation based on their limited understanding. I just don't know as we are learning more every day.

The theists won't be happy. They prefer the creation scenario. An eternal universe in one of four phases would be the final nail in God's coffin. The last gap will have vanished. Goodbye God.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 10:58:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 10:55:05 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:31:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:23:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

http://thepowerofideas.com...

Quite interesting but I can only loosely follow the mathematics, wish I had more expertise and time. It seems their key breakthrough is avoiding a singularity though.

Yeah most here will stop with the initial link and not go to the published study. Then claim a refutation based on their limited understanding. I just don't know as we are learning more every day.

The theists won't be happy. They prefer the creation scenario. An eternal universe in one of four phases would be the final nail in God's coffin. The last gap will have vanished. Goodbye God.

None of that precludes gods existence nor is it relevant to this topic. Posted in science, not religion to mitigate that being brought in. Looks like I failed.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 11:02:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 10:58:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 10:55:05 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:31:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:23:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

http://thepowerofideas.com...

Quite interesting but I can only loosely follow the mathematics, wish I had more expertise and time. It seems their key breakthrough is avoiding a singularity though.

Yeah most here will stop with the initial link and not go to the published study. Then claim a refutation based on their limited understanding. I just don't know as we are learning more every day.

The theists won't be happy. They prefer the creation scenario. An eternal universe in one of four phases would be the final nail in God's coffin. The last gap will have vanished. Goodbye God.

None of that precludes gods existence nor is it relevant to this topic.

The thread title was "God of the Gaps". I'm fairly sure I was right on-topic.

Posted in science, not religion to mitigate that being brought in. Looks like I failed.

You set yourself up for failure if that really was your intention (which I doubt).
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 11:08:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 11:02:21 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 10:58:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 10:55:05 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:31:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:23:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

http://thepowerofideas.com...

Quite interesting but I can only loosely follow the mathematics, wish I had more expertise and time. It seems their key breakthrough is avoiding a singularity though.

Yeah most here will stop with the initial link and not go to the published study. Then claim a refutation based on their limited understanding. I just don't know as we are learning more every day.

The theists won't be happy. They prefer the creation scenario. An eternal universe in one of four phases would be the final nail in God's coffin. The last gap will have vanished. Goodbye God.

None of that precludes gods existence nor is it relevant to this topic.

The thread title was "God of the Gaps". I'm fairly sure I was right on-topic.

Posted in science, not religion to mitigate that being brought in. Looks like I failed.

You set yourself up for failure if that really was your intention (which I doubt).

Doubt all you want. Do you have ESP?

Anyway I clearly state why I used God of Gaps... the lead mathematician used it. I also use douche bag... that label applies equally to both sides.

But on this article, they are confirming a postulate by susskind I tend to agree with. 10 years ago I was called crazy. Maybe I am. Been called agotistic. That might be true as well. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong (or right as, stated above, the more we learn the more we have to revise that which many don't understand).
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 11:19:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 11:08:42 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:02:21 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 10:58:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 10:55:05 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:31:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:23:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

http://thepowerofideas.com...

Quite interesting but I can only loosely follow the mathematics, wish I had more expertise and time. It seems their key breakthrough is avoiding a singularity though.

Yeah most here will stop with the initial link and not go to the published study. Then claim a refutation based on their limited understanding. I just don't know as we are learning more every day.

The theists won't be happy. They prefer the creation scenario. An eternal universe in one of four phases would be the final nail in God's coffin. The last gap will have vanished. Goodbye God.

None of that precludes gods existence nor is it relevant to this topic.

The thread title was "God of the Gaps". I'm fairly sure I was right on-topic.

Posted in science, not religion to mitigate that being brought in. Looks like I failed.

You set yourself up for failure if that really was your intention (which I doubt).

Doubt all you want. Do you have ESP?

Anyway I clearly state why I used God of Gaps... the lead mathematician used it.

Great. So I responded to it, agreeing with him. What is the problem?

I also use douche bag... that label applies equally to both sides.

You're calling me a douche bag for drawing the obvious conclusion, echoed by the article itself?

But on this article, they are confirming a postulate by susskind I tend to agree with. 10 years ago I was called crazy. Maybe I am. Been called agotistic. That might be true as well. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong (or right as, stated above, the more we learn the more we have to revise that which many don't understand).

Don't get carried away. This is just a bit of mathematics at this stage. It has a long, long way to go before becoming established science, if it ever does.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 11:38:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 11:19:31 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:08:42 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:02:21 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 10:58:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 10:55:05 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:31:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:23:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

http://thepowerofideas.com...

Quite interesting but I can only loosely follow the mathematics, wish I had more expertise and time. It seems their key breakthrough is avoiding a singularity though.

Yeah most here will stop with the initial link and not go to the published study. Then claim a refutation based on their limited understanding. I just don't know as we are learning more every day.

The theists won't be happy. They prefer the creation scenario. An eternal universe in one of four phases would be the final nail in God's coffin. The last gap will have vanished. Goodbye God.

None of that precludes gods existence nor is it relevant to this topic.

The thread title was "God of the Gaps". I'm fairly sure I was right on-topic.

Posted in science, not religion to mitigate that being brought in. Looks like I failed.

You set yourself up for failure if that really was your intention (which I doubt).

Doubt all you want. Do you have ESP?

Anyway I clearly state why I used God of Gaps... the lead mathematician used it.

Great. So I responded to it, agreeing with him. What is the problem?

I also use douche bag... that label applies equally to both sides.

You're calling me a douche bag for drawing the obvious conclusion, echoed by the article itself?

But on this article, they are confirming a postulate by susskind I tend to agree with. 10 years ago I was called crazy. Maybe I am. Been called agotistic. That might be true as well. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong (or right as, stated above, the more we learn the more we have to revise that which many don't understand).

Don't get carried away. This is just a bit of mathematics at this stage. It has a long, long way to go before becoming established science, if it ever does.

No douche bag refers to any who take a subject and then spin it to fit their personal narrative. I inabashedly use terms so people self identify their hypersensitivity which helps me filter my conversations with those who can converse vs those who can't (think trump supporters, trump haters. One knows what they are getting before a conversation even starts).

The last part referenced is those who claim dark energy dark matter like it's settled (posted s thread about that as well). I find it interesting but it isn't measurable currently and shouldn't be used for support in an argument.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 12:55:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 11:38:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

The last part referenced is those who claim dark energy dark matter like it's settled (posted s thread about that as well). I find it interesting but it isn't measurable currently and shouldn't be used for support in an argument.

I beg to differ. We don't know the specifics of dark energy and dark matter yet but their effect is certainly measurable. In fact, that is why these placeholder names were invented - to put a name to an observed effect.

I understand your point though. Current measurements may show an accelerating expansion of the universe hypothesized to be caused by "dark energy" but there is no guarantee that this will remain the case as the universe evolves. We need to determine the nature of dark energy before any such call can be made conclusively.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:03:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 12:55:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:38:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

The last part referenced is those who claim dark energy dark matter like it's settled (posted s thread about that as well). I find it interesting but it isn't measurable currently and shouldn't be used for support in an argument.

I beg to differ. We don't know the specifics of dark energy and dark matter yet but their effect is certainly measurable. In fact, that is why these placeholder names were invented - to put a name to an observed effect.

I understand your point though. Current measurements may show an accelerating expansion of the universe hypothesized to be caused by "dark energy" but there is no guarantee that this will remain the case as the universe evolves. We need to determine the nature of dark energy before any such call can be made conclusively.

And why I like this math. I don't discount dark matter or energy. It's a placeholder for 'we don't know'. The unsophisticated use it as trump cards.

Yes I mocked the creationist jab you made. I won't apologize but I will explain. 'God' and empirical science are neither mutually exclusive or mutually in combat'. 1 is empirical, 1 is experiential.

I find this math very supporting to my postulate. It doesn't mean it's 'right'. But it's not a gap answer used for none informational purposes either.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:23:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 1:03:05 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/23/2016 12:55:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:38:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

The last part referenced is those who claim dark energy dark matter like it's settled (posted s thread about that as well). I find it interesting but it isn't measurable currently and shouldn't be used for support in an argument.

I beg to differ. We don't know the specifics of dark energy and dark matter yet but their effect is certainly measurable. In fact, that is why these placeholder names were invented - to put a name to an observed effect.

I understand your point though. Current measurements may show an accelerating expansion of the universe hypothesized to be caused by "dark energy" but there is no guarantee that this will remain the case as the universe evolves. We need to determine the nature of dark energy before any such call can be made conclusively.

And why I like this math. I don't discount dark matter or energy. It's a placeholder for 'we don't know'. The unsophisticated use it as trump cards.

Yes, but you fail to address the misinformation you gave claiming that they have no measurable effect. They do, and it is not "unsophisticated" to state this. Allow me correct you. The placeholder is actually for "we don't know the root cause".

Yes I mocked the creationist jab you made.

It was more of a complaint than mocking. Unfounded as it turns out.

I won't apologize but I will explain. 'God' and empirical science are neither mutually exclusive or mutually in combat'. 1 is empirical, 1 is experiential.

That would depend on how God is defined. The Biblical God and his alleged exploits in holy texts are most certainly in conflict with empirical science.

I find this math very supporting to my postulate. It doesn't mean it's 'right'. But it's not a gap answer used for none informational purposes either.

I have trouble parsing the last sentence. I have no disagreement up to that point.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:41:01 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 1:23:32 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/23/2016 1:03:05 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/23/2016 12:55:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:38:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

The last part referenced is those who claim dark energy dark matter like it's settled (posted s thread about that as well). I find it interesting but it isn't measurable currently and shouldn't be used for support in an argument.

I beg to differ. We don't know the specifics of dark energy and dark matter yet but their effect is certainly measurable. In fact, that is why these placeholder names were invented - to put a name to an observed effect.

I understand your point though. Current measurements may show an accelerating expansion of the universe hypothesized to be caused by "dark energy" but there is no guarantee that this will remain the case as the universe evolves. We need to determine the nature of dark energy before any such call can be made conclusively.

And why I like this math. I don't discount dark matter or energy. It's a placeholder for 'we don't know'. The unsophisticated use it as trump cards.

Yes, but you fail to address the misinformation you gave claiming that they have no measurable effect. They do, and it is not "unsophisticated" to state this. Allow me correct you. The placeholder is actually for "we don't know the root cause".

Yes I mocked the creationist jab you made.

It was more of a complaint than mocking. Unfounded as it turns out.

I won't apologize but I will explain. 'God' and empirical science are neither mutually exclusive or mutually in combat'. 1 is empirical, 1 is experiential.

That would depend on how God is defined. The Biblical God and his alleged exploits in holy texts are most certainly in conflict with empirical science.

I find this math very supporting to my postulate. It doesn't mean it's 'right'. But it's not a gap answer used for none informational purposes either.

I have trouble parsing the last sentence. I have no disagreement up to that point.

i would make an obvious observation but I don't really care. Sharing new ideas outside of zeitgeist, I do. You are not a physicist. I am a Data scientist. Therefore, believe what you want. Disparage others, I'll fvcking rip your argument to threads.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 1:45:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/23/2016 1:41:01 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/23/2016 1:23:32 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/23/2016 1:03:05 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/23/2016 12:55:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2016 11:38:18 PM, Stymie13 wrote:

The last part referenced is those who claim dark energy dark matter like it's settled (posted s thread about that as well). I find it interesting but it isn't measurable currently and shouldn't be used for support in an argument.

I beg to differ. We don't know the specifics of dark energy and dark matter yet but their effect is certainly measurable. In fact, that is why these placeholder names were invented - to put a name to an observed effect.

I understand your point though. Current measurements may show an accelerating expansion of the universe hypothesized to be caused by "dark energy" but there is no guarantee that this will remain the case as the universe evolves. We need to determine the nature of dark energy before any such call can be made conclusively.

And why I like this math. I don't discount dark matter or energy. It's a placeholder for 'we don't know'. The unsophisticated use it as trump cards.

Yes, but you fail to address the misinformation you gave claiming that they have no measurable effect. They do, and it is not "unsophisticated" to state this. Allow me correct you. The placeholder is actually for "we don't know the root cause".

Yes I mocked the creationist jab you made.

It was more of a complaint than mocking. Unfounded as it turns out.

I won't apologize but I will explain. 'God' and empirical science are neither mutually exclusive or mutually in combat'. 1 is empirical, 1 is experiential.

That would depend on how God is defined. The Biblical God and his alleged exploits in holy texts are most certainly in conflict with empirical science.

I find this math very supporting to my postulate. It doesn't mean it's 'right'. But it's not a gap answer used for none informational purposes either.

I have trouble parsing the last sentence. I have no disagreement up to that point.

i would make an obvious observation but I don't really care. Sharing new ideas outside of zeitgeist, I do. You are not a physicist. I am a Data scientist. Therefore, believe what you want. Disparage others, I'll fvcking rip your argument to threads.

I'm not sure where the anger comes from. I thought we were having a civil conversation.

As to your boast, I'll wait with bated breath. :-)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 4:20:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 1:17:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/22/2016 1:13:06 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
Very interesting piece from nature.com (link embedded in article). Not necessarily a new thought but a finding by Canadian and Egyptian mathmatecians disputing the singularity-big bang, instead favoring a cyclical process.

NOTE: professor not used God of Gaps before d.bags get hung up on the title

http://thepowerofideas.com...

Seems all they've done is tweaked the numbers for Friedmans derivatives of General Relativity such that the entropy places a limit on the density of what should appear as a singularity in Friedmans derivatives (zero density with infinite mass) thus cancelling out a singularity. In essence, they are saying there is a density, that it isn't zero. This might show the laws of physics may not necessarily break down inside a black hole as previously thought.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth