William Lane Craig???

Details Discussion 155 Print Report
William Lane Craig???
Philonus
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2007
Location: United States

Total Topics: 65
Total Posts: 452
#1 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 4 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 14, 2011 - 10:55 PM:
Subject: William Lane Craig???
I hope this thread doesn't spark up too much controversy, but before I decided to read some of William Lane Craig's arguments, I thought he was a reasonable and respectable philosopher and debater. I kept hearing good things about him from both theists and atheists, so I assumed that because his reputation is certainly merrited I might come to like his arguments. I decided to read his arguments today, and somehow I had mixed feelings. I was angry, surprised, appalled, disillusioned, and disappointed. Now, I won't use my feelings to undermine WLC (William Lane Craig for short) arguments, but they are percipitation of what I actually thought of his arguments. First, in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, WLC argued against the argument for the presumption for Atheism, and he argued that this argument is flawed. He argued that 1) atheism would be conflated into agnosticism, and would trivialize the redefinition of Atheism 2) Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence unless there is a specific postulate that makes predictions were evidences are expected. 3) He made this argument: "On at least Christian theism the primary way in which we come to know God is not through evidence but through the inner work of his Holy Spirit, which is effectual in bringing persons into relation with God wholly apart from evidence.4 (2) On Christian theism God has provided the stupendous miracles of the creation of the universe from nothing and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, for which events there is good scientific and historical evidence" Now the problem with the first argument in my opinion is that there are actually two kinds of Atheism that WLC did not seem to be aware of: Negative Atheism and Positive Atheism. Presumption of Atheism leans towards Negative Atheism in that no belief in God is accepted unless there is evidence. While Negative Atheism has to do with absence of beliefs, Agnosticism has to do with absence of knowledge (confirmed data), so it doesn't seem like both of them are conflated completely. Now, I don't have much of a problem with the second argument, I happen to agree with this to an extent but what I have problems with is that God does not seem to be a decent theoretical postulate that predicts some of the evidences that we can find. Fine-Tune Argument hardly even counts as one good evidence (as well as Intelligent Design!). So far there is no decent theoretical model that predicts that God exists, therefore there is no evidence that we can find. Also it seems that WLC has briefly mistaken that Negative Atheists are saying that "if there is no evidence, this means there is no God", on the contrary what they are saying is that "If there is no evidence, there is no rational warrant to hold a belief that there is God".

The third argument....is probably one of the arguments where my emotions peaked to it's highest until I could not contain myself. First of all...the first part of the argument is arguing that because theists appeal to religious experience that assumes that God exists (holy spirit) it should not appeal to evidence...I hardly see how this follows because religious experience is notoriously bad proof for the existence of a Judeo-Christian God (religious experience can easily be explained by natural explanations, such as the example in the documentary God and the Brain, and other psychological explanations of religious experience). I can also inquire whether this religious experience is real or merely subjective. In any case this argument goes in circles because it assumes that God exists. The second part of the argument is the worse because like the first part of the argument it goes in circles. It assumes that God did create the world, cause resurrection, miracles, and made appeals to arguments made by Natural Theology, without providing evidence (other than a single footnote). WLC did say that there are good evidence for these...but he still hasn't presented them.

In the Cosmological argument he made another argument which I found unconvincing. He argued that all of the models used to explain the origins of the universe has failed. Now, I am not a physicist, and I don't know how right he is, but assuming that he is telling the truth, I hardly see how this entails that God is a valid explanation for the existence of the Universe. He provided arguments against infinite regress, which is a fairly nice argument, but I fail to see why it is effective in applying to the cosmological argument because neither theists or atheists are assuming that there is an infinite regress. If the prior to the Big Bang there is not time-space then obviously we cannot have infinite causal regress unless we have other universes that somehow caused the existence of other universes (I don't think any physicist enthusiastically support this hypothesis or speculation from what I see from many physics documentaries).

He made another argument that due to the principle of entropy the universe will become a cold and dilute place where living things cannot inhabit, and possibly the universe could cease to exist. Now, again, I'm not a physicist, but from what I heard many physicist are skeptical of the Big-Rip argument (correct term?), and even if it were true I hardly see why it would prove the existence of God. On the contrary it would actually disprove the existence of God since it would show that God is not an omnipotent God who is capable of creating a everlasting universe and such a God would not be a benevolent God since such a God would not allow a universe to die out along with living things. Even if WLC is correct, this hardly proves the existence of God although it would appeal to our emotional need for a God. Also...who is seriously going to whine when the universe is going to end up cold and dilute? That's going to happen in billions of years later, probably way after the extinction of our species. I hardly see what this future condition of the universe should concern us right now when we have more important things to worry about (such as Global Warming).

Quite honestly...I hope he is much better than what he wrote in this article...I did happen to read one article where he deduced that if quantum sub-atomic particles require an observe to exist, and since the universe composed of sub-atomic particle exists, then there must be an absolute transcendent observer that perceives all sub-atomic particles which explains the existence of the universe. At first I thought this argument was neat but I found out that other people who study science complained that he misunderstood the term "observer" meant points in space-time, and that the term was really a metaphor.

Again, maybe WLC is better than this, maybe he has came up with better arguments, maybe he is really talented debator and philosopher, but as of right now I do not see why the specific arguments he made in this article is convincing...

Edited by Wolfman on Mar 15, 2011 - 2:26 AM. Reason: spacing
Arkady
New New Atheist
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 4271
#2 - Quote - Permalink
13 of 16 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 14, 2011 - 11:00 PM:

Philonus wrote:
On Christian theism God has provided the stupendous miracles of the creation of the universe from nothing and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, for which events there is good scientific and historical evidence"

That alone is enough to stop me from reading the rest of WLC's arguments. There's about as much "historical evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus as there is for Elvis's still being alive.
Maw
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2010

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 1007
#3 - Quote - Permalink
7 of 9 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 14, 2011 - 11:46 PM:

First, I'm sorry, but do you think you can make your opening post a bit more...readable? It's just a large wall of text...

Anyway I've spent a decent amount of time watching William Lane Craig debates, and I've even been on his site, Reasonable Faith in which he sometimes answers various criticism to his arguments in his Q&A section.

The man became a deeply religious Christian at the age of 16, and since then his philosophy has been guided completely through faith, not through actual reasoning at all (as he professes). To call him a professional philosopher...is dubious to say the least. disapproval

Most of his more scientific arguments (Kalam, Fine-Tuning) have been refuted by scientists...but it boggles me why he continues to profess them as philosophically sound. Hell, his most famous argument (Kalam) has been refuted numerous times on this site alone. He also argues that because objective morals exist, God must exist, Historical fact of the Resurrection of Jesus, and that personal believe is evidence of God. shaking head I should hope that anyone with even half a brain should realize how completely unsound these arguments are.

If you've watched any of his debates, you'll find that he generally uses sneaky rhetoric to entice his unsuspecting audience members into believing his blatantly pseudo-philosophical propositions and arguments. He is considered by most to be the leader of the "New Evangelical" movement and he, along with others (such as Lee Strobel, John Lennox etc) have...somehow...made it ok to use such poor arguments. The man's an idiot to say the least...

Edited by Maw on Mar 14, 2011 - 11:53 PM
Philonus
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2007
Location: United States

Total Topics: 65
Total Posts: 452
#4 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 15, 2011 - 12:10 AM:

Maw wrote:
First, I'm sorry, but do you think you can make your opening post a bit more...readable? It's just a large wall of text...

Anyway I've spent a decent amount of time watching William Lane Craig debates, and I've even been on his site, Reasonable Faith in which he sometimes answers various criticism to his arguments in his Q&A section.

The man became a deeply religious Christian at the age of 16, and since then his philosophy has been guided completely through faith, not through actual reasoning at all (as he professes). To call him a professional philosopher...is dubious to say the least. disapproval

Most of his more scientific arguments (Kalam, Fine-Tuning) have been refuted by scientists...but it boggles me why he continues to profess them as philosophically sound. Hell, his most famous argument (Kalam) has been refuted numerous times on this site alone. He also argues that because objective morals exist, God must exist, Historical fact of the Resurrection of Jesus, and that personal believe is evidence of God. shaking head I should hope that anyone with even half a brain should realize how completely unsound these arguments are.

If you've watched any of his debates, you'll find that he generally uses sneaky rhetoric to entice his unsuspecting audience members into believing his blatantly pseudo-philosophical propositions and arguments. He is considered by most to be the leader of the "New Evangelical" movement and he, along with others (such as Lee Strobel, John Lennox etc) have...somehow...made it ok to use such poor arguments. The man's an idiot to say the least...


First, I will try to make the text more readable, I'll edit it and add more spaces.

Second, thanks for the information! I had a fishy feeling about him while I read the article (and when I looked at some of the arguments he puts out). I just had this eerie feeling that I couldn't articulate, but..who knows...maybe it's just a feeling, but somehow your explanation seems to alleviate it. I had a feeling that he is really an evangelical wearing the robe of a philosopher.

Third, you know, I just found that out several weeeks ago that Craig's Kalaam's argument has been undermined by so many people already. The only new thing you told me is that even people here undermined Kalaam's argument. I kind of knew that the fine-tune argument is a bit fishy and vague, and unfalsifiable, as 180 Proof and Kwalish Kid pointed out to me. But I don't think you need to tell me twice about his arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, objective morality, and personal belief as evidence. The whole objective morality argument was trash, in my opinion, because at least for me it secretly commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I could be wrong though.

Yeah...I heard about Lee Strobel...and I heard his book was disasterous because none of it was consistent with the findings of biblical scholars. Hell, when I took a course on Introduction to New Testament I found out that his arguments were bad. However, i'm not sure if Craig is an "idiot" in the literal sense, but if you mean that he's deploying so many bad arguments then I know what you mean.
Maw
PF Addict
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2010

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 1007
#5 - Quote - Permalink
5 of 7 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 15, 2011 - 12:24 AM:

Philonus wrote:
an evangelical wearing the robe of a philosopher.


nod Yup, that's exactly who he is.


However, i'm not sure if Craig is an "idiot" in the literal sense, but if you mean that he's deploying so many bad arguments then I know what you mean.


He's an idiot in that he is a professional philosopher (went to school to study it, teaches it, etc) with obvious pseudo-philosophical arguments which are generally just archaic (see Aquinas) hogwash that have been refuted by modern physics/cosmology or by contemporary biblical scholars...the rest is just unsound. Of course a lot of Theists praise him...eat up what he says and whatnot...but they generally just listen to that which already agrees with them and call it a day.

Either way, I would recommend watching one of his debates. He hasn't changed anything in the last 30 years and you get a good sense of the sneaky rhetoric he uses on his audience.
Philonus
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2007
Location: United States

Total Topics: 65
Total Posts: 452
#6 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 2 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 15, 2011 - 2:31 AM:

Maw wrote:



He's an idiot in that he is a professional philosopher (went to school to study it, teaches it, etc) with obvious pseudo-philosophical arguments which are generally just archaic (see Aquinas) hogwash that have been refuted by modern physics/cosmology or by contemporary biblical scholars...the rest is just unsound. Of course a lot of Theists praise him...eat up what he says and whatnot...but they generally just listen to that which already agrees with them and call it a day.

Either way, I would recommend watching one of his debates. He hasn't changed anything in the last 30 years and you get a good sense of the sneaky rhetoric he uses on his audience.


I actually saw one of his videos where he criticized Dawkin's God Delusion, with my friend, and my friend was cringing his teeth when WLC tried to show that Dawkin's argument was invalid. I carefully analyzed his arguments and I didn't find it convincing...one of his arguments is that you don't need an explanation of an explanation, or else it can go into an infinite regress. One of his example was if you find ancient remains of the tools left by the lost tribe, you don't need an explanation for the lost tribe. Another example is if you find machinery in the moon, you don't need an explanation of the intelligent designers/visitors. His argument was that an explanation of an explanation until infinite regress is not an explanation at all. My problem with this is that the examples were not entirely realistic: We need to identify who the lost tribe most likely will be, and we need to know why the remains were left there and what was their intention in using those tools. Also, for another example, we also need to identify who these visitors could be, but even if we can't we can still find out their purpose for being on the moon by simply studying the machine: that would be another explanation of an explanation. The problem here is that an explanation of another explanation does not necessarily lead to an infinite regress, to assert this would be a slippery slope argument.



Also...I was quite surprise that WLC asserted that Richard Dawkins' argument is flawed because God is not complex but simple. I would really have to disagree with this one. My problem with divine simplicity is that all all attributes are simply equivalent to God's nature then omnipotence would be the same as omniscience or omnibenevolence which is obviously absurd. Another problem is that to say that "God is omnipotent" in reference to divine simplicity, is simply saying "God is God's Nature", which is a meaningless tautology. I can't seriously believe that WLC decided to use Divine Simplicity to undermien Dawkins argument....I mean...come on.....very very few people defend such an argument. Even Alvin Plantinga destroyed the argument (ironically, he too used the argument to undermine Dawkin's Argument).



I would have to contend that if God does exist then God is complex since God has the sets of predicated attributes that constites God, but such complexities of God are still ellusive and vague.

Again, I'm still surprise that WLC would make those arguments.
kNoctis
driftwood

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Total Topics: 76
Total Posts: 60
#7 - Quote - Permalink
3 of 5 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 15, 2011 - 7:05 AM:

Arkady wrote:

That alone is enough to stop me from reading the rest of WLC's arguments. There's about as much "historical evidence" for the resurrection of Jesus as there is for Elvis's still being alive.


Additionally, giving a "scientific" explanation for the existence of a miracle, such as the resurrection, confuses what exactly a miracle is supposed to be. If miracles could be subsumed under a scientific paradigm, then miracles would be a natural phenomenon. But a miracle is supposed to be an intervention by a theistic god in the universe, therefore it must be a supernatural, i.e. transcendent event. Providing a natural explanation for a miracle dilutes theism into pantheism.

Edited by kNoctis on Mar 15, 2011 - 10:03 AM
Perceiver
Resident

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 04, 2011

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 102
#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 15, 2011 - 3:57 PM:

Philonus wrote:
I hope this thread doesn't spark up too much controversy, but before I decided to read some of William Lane Craig's arguments, I thought he was a reasonable and respectable philosopher and debater. I kept hearing good things about him from both theists and atheists, so I assumed that because his reputation is certainly merrited I might come to like his arguments. I decided to read his arguments today, and somehow I had mixed feelings. I was angry, surprised, appalled, disillusioned, and disappointed. Now, I won't use my feelings to undermine WLC (William Lane Craig for short) arguments, but they are percipitation of what I actually thought of his arguments. First, in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, WLC argued against the argument for the presumption for Atheism, and he argued that this argument is flawed. He argued that 1) atheism would be conflated into agnosticism, and would trivialize the redefinition of Atheism 2) Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence unless there is a specific postulate that makes predictions were evidences are expected. 3) He made this argument: "On at least Christian theism the primary way in which we come to know God is not through evidence but through the inner work of his Holy Spirit, which is effectual in bringing persons into relation with God wholly apart from evidence.4 (2) On Christian theism God has provided the stupendous miracles of the creation of the universe from nothing and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, for which events there is good scientific and historical evidence" Now the problem with the first argument in my opinion is that there are actually two kinds of Atheism that WLC did not seem to be aware of: Negative Atheism and Positive Atheism. Presumption of Atheism leans towards Negative Atheism in that no belief in God is accepted unless there is evidence. While Negative Atheism has to do with absence of beliefs, Agnosticism has to do with absence of knowledge (confirmed data), so it doesn't seem like both of them are conflated completely. Now, I don't have much of a problem with the second argument, I happen to agree with this to an extent but what I have problems with is that God does not seem to be a decent theoretical postulate that predicts some of the evidences that we can find. Fine-Tune Argument hardly even counts as one good evidence (as well as Intelligent Design!). So far there is no decent theoretical model that predicts that God exists, therefore there is no evidence that we can find. Also it seems that WLC has briefly mistaken that Negative Atheists are saying that "if there is no evidence, this means there is no God", on the contrary what they are saying is that "If there is no evidence, there is no rational warrant to hold a belief that there is God".

The third argument....is probably one of the arguments where my emotions peaked to it's highest until I could not contain myself. First of all...the first part of the argument is arguing that because theists appeal to religious experience that assumes that God exists (holy spirit) it should not appeal to evidence...I hardly see how this follows because religious experience is notoriously bad proof for the existence of a Judeo-Christian God (religious experience can easily be explained by natural explanations, such as the example in the documentary God and the Brain, and other psychological explanations of religious experience). I can also inquire whether this religious experience is real or merely subjective. In any case this argument goes in circles because it assumes that God exists. The second part of the argument is the worse because like the first part of the argument it goes in circles. It assumes that God did create the world, cause resurrection, miracles, and made appeals to arguments made by Natural Theology, without providing evidence (other than a single footnote). WLC did say that there are good evidence for these...but he still hasn't presented them.

In the Cosmological argument he made another argument which I found unconvincing. He argued that all of the models used to explain the origins of the universe has failed. Now, I am not a physicist, and I don't know how right he is, but assuming that he is telling the truth, I hardly see how this entails that God is a valid explanation for the existence of the Universe. He provided arguments against infinite regress, which is a fairly nice argument, but I fail to see why it is effective in applying to the cosmological argument because neither theists or atheists are assuming that there is an infinite regress. If the prior to the Big Bang there is not time-space then obviously we cannot have infinite causal regress unless we have other universes that somehow caused the existence of other universes (I don't think any physicist enthusiastically support this hypothesis or speculation from what I see from many physics documentaries).

He made another argument that due to the principle of entropy the universe will become a cold and dilute place where living things cannot inhabit, and possibly the universe could cease to exist. Now, again, I'm not a physicist, but from what I heard many physicist are skeptical of the Big-Rip argument (correct term?), and even if it were true I hardly see why it would prove the existence of God. On the contrary it would actually disprove the existence of God since it would show that God is not an omnipotent God who is capable of creating a everlasting universe and such a God would not be a benevolent God since such a God would not allow a universe to die out along with living things. Even if WLC is correct, this hardly proves the existence of God although it would appeal to our emotional need for a God. Also...who is seriously going to whine when the universe is going to end up cold and dilute? That's going to happen in billions of years later, probably way after the extinction of our species. I hardly see what this future condition of the universe should concern us right now when we have more important things to worry about (such as Global Warming).

Quite honestly...I hope he is much better than what he wrote in this article...I did happen to read one article where he deduced that if quantum sub-atomic particles require an observe to exist, and since the universe composed of sub-atomic particle exists, then there must be an absolute transcendent observer that perceives all sub-atomic particles which explains the existence of the universe. At first I thought this argument was neat but I found out that other people who study science complained that he misunderstood the term "observer" meant points in space-time, and that the term was really a metaphor.

Again, maybe WLC is better than this, maybe he has came up with better arguments, maybe he is really talented debator and philosopher, but as of right now I do not see why the specific arguments he made in this article is convincing...




There is a difference between the ideas of absence of knowledge and absence of belief, but not when we are using the words to describe actual categories of human beings that condition their acceptance of things upon evidence (and this is what we are dealing with in the case of both agnostics and negative atheists).




Also, I didn't read the text you refer to but i would expect that the significance of the claim that "Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence unless there is a specific postulate that makes predictions where evidences are expected" is to identify agnosticism with atheism rather than to suggest that theism is a postulate that demands something. Are you sure that's what he was doing?
Philonus
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2007
Location: United States

Total Topics: 65
Total Posts: 452
#9 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Mar 15, 2011 - 11:51 PM:

Perceiver wrote:

There is a difference between the ideas of absence of knowledge and absence of belief, but not when we are using the words to describe actual categories of human beings that condition their acceptance of things upon evidence (and this is what we are dealing with in the case of both agnostics and negative atheists).



We can agree that there is a difference between absence of knowledge and absence of belief, but i'm not sure if I can agree with the latter clause. Majority of the scientists who accept evolution do have an absenc of belief (creationism), but of coure this analogy would not do entirely since the absence of such belief is due to the fact that it has been falsified. Agnostics are simply people who do not know the answer to the question "Does God exist", and decides to remain neutral and refuse to take either side of the issue until there is enough evidence to support either of them. If this is a definition of agnosticism then I think "absence of knowledge" does apply to agnosticism. Positive Atheist makes the strong assertion that the statement "God exists" is plainly false, in this sense he is asserting not only belief but that we have sufficient knowledge to decide the truth-value of the statement. Negative Atheist, according to the argument of Presumption of Atheism, would argue that we should not have an affirmative belief of God because there is no evidence to support the belief. The burden of proof is on the theist for making an assertion that is without evidence than Atheists. The Negative Atheist simply does not have an affirmative belief in God because no evidence is provided. While Negative Atheist is a Negative Atheist because of the absence of evidence, the positive atheist could possibly be a positive atheist because postulating the existence of God is not consistent with evidence (problem of evil).



Perceiver wrote:

Also, I didn't read the text you refer to but i would expect that the significance of the claim that "Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence unless there is a specific postulate that makes predictions where evidences are expected" is to identify agnosticism with atheism rather than to suggest that theism is a postulate that demands something. Are you sure that's what he was doing?


William Lane Craig was arguing that Negative Atheists (someone who refuses to have a belief on God because of the lack of evidence) is the same as Agnostics, or in his words both are "conflated". WLC argued that absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence unless there is a hypothesis or theoretical model that makes a specific and clear prediction where we would expect evidence. What he meant to say is that hypothesis that makes predictions tells us where evidences could be, if we do not find the evidence (or found contrary evidence) then the hypothesis is falsified. If the evidence are founded as predicted by the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is confirmed. However if we have no hypothesis or model to begin with and we find no evidence this does not mean that the possible hypothesis that we could have come up with is wrong.

An Atheist (positive atheist) would argue that since we did not find any evidence predicted by the hypothesis (God), the hypothesis fails. The Agnostic, on the other hand, believes that the there may be more evidence but as for now it is inconclusive so we can not really do anything about it. So no, I don't think Atheism and Agnosticism would be the same just because "Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence unless there is a specific postulate that makes predictions where evidences are expected". WLC argues that Atheism, according to the argument called Presumption of Atheism, would be the same as Agnosticism because both of them would agree that there is the absence of evidence and neither of them has an affirmative belief about God. To an extent I agree with this in that Negative Atheism and Agnosticism would have something in common, but what I disagree is whether this entails that Negative Atheism is the same thing as Agnosticism. What I would say is that while Agnostics do not make any decision in regards to the existence of God, a Negative Atheist would argue that the burden of proof is on the Theist because the Theist has not provided any evidence for the existence of God. As long as no evidence is provided, according to Antony Flew, the presumption of atheism is valid.
Uccisore28
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 16, 2011

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 26
#10 - Quote - Permalink
7 of 11 people found this post helpful
Posted Mar 17, 2011 - 5:37 PM:

I've never really been that impressed with him. But you have to understand, the Big Popular Atheists these days that host debates that get a lot of attention are hacks and poseurs too. William Lane Craig is the equivalent of Dawkins or Hitchens or whomever is releasing the best sellers these days. So he gets a lot of attention for that reason. There's real philosophers on both sides of this issue, and they aren't going to waste time getting into arguments with these guys.

Recent Internal Replies
On Feb 24, 2013 - 7:25 PM, jorndoe replied internally to Figureitout's Of course there ....
On Feb 22, 2013 - 6:29 PM, jorndoe replied internally to IfUrGivingIn's I'm sorry, I....
On Feb 22, 2013 - 12:36 AM, IfUrGivingIn replied internally to IfUrGivingIn's I'm sorry, I....
On Feb 22, 2013 - 12:09 AM, jorndoe replied internally to IfUrGivingIn's I'm sorry, I....
On Feb 21, 2013 - 11:56 PM, IfUrGivingIn replied internally to IfUrGivingIn's I'm sorry, I....
On Feb 21, 2013 - 11:45 PM, jorndoe replied internally to IfUrGivingIn's I'm sorry, I....
On Feb 21, 2013 - 11:14 PM, IfUrGivingIn replied internally to IfUrGivingIn's I'm sorry, I....
On Feb 21, 2013 - 8:08 PM, jorndoe replied internally to IfUrGivingIn's I'm sorry, I....
On Feb 19, 2013 - 4:33 PM, Metaphysician Undiscovered replied internally to Saphsin's The way time is defi....
On Feb 17, 2013 - 8:56 PM, IfUrGivingIn replied internally to IfUrGivingIn's Addressed to jorndoe....

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.