April 23, 2009

Presuppositionalism, Part 4 (answering Cameron)

Posted in Answering Apologists, Atheism, Worldview tagged , , , , , , at 11:07 am by Andrew

(This series begins with Part 1; Part 2; and Part 3.)

In the comments to Part 1 of this series, Cameron takes up the presuppositionalist argument for the existence of God. I don’t think his answers respond to my original claim. Here’s my evaluation of Cameron’s specific arguments:

Cameron contends:

1. Particles may appear to be in one place and not in one place at the same time. But even if they were actually and completely in one place and not in one place at the same time, then this actually has nothing to do with the 3 laws of logic. The reason is because phenomenons in nature are only descriptive of how nature is, not prescriptive of how something should be. If electrons behave differently and were always in one place, then that would have no bearing on whether or not nature would still exist (theoretically ). But if the law of identity can violate itself, then you can’t think, hence why it’s prescriptive.

I think you’re missing the point of this argument, which is that electrons can violate the law of identity (A=A) by being both particles and not-particles at the same time. The fact that they are in two places at once is also a pretty stern caution to us about trying to turn our general intuitions into universal laws that operate at the quantum level. We don’t really know that logic is absolute; that’s my point.

We require the law of identity to be in tract in order to for you to identify what “being there” and “not being there” is, or what a “particle” is as opposed to what a “particle is not”, for you to even attempt to make your case. You require the law of identity to be in tact to say the law of identity doesn’t need to be in tact (or can be violated).

Again, if I were to take your reasoning to it’s full conclusion, and we can identify A as non-A, then we couldn’t be logical, thus think. You might make the statement, “Christianity is false”. But because A can be non-A to you, then I have every right to interpret you as saying “Christianity is true”.

Right, I understand the significance of the law of identity to human logic. All I’m saying is that we don’t have sufficient warrant to claim that the “law” of identity also operates on the fundamentals of the universe.

Let me give you an example: when we have a discussion on this blog, we do so in English as a precondition for holding a meaningful discussion. That doesn’t mean that everyone speaks English, or that if we found another language you and I have in common, we couldn’t switch to that as well. It just means that we accept English as a precondition for discussion. My argument is that we also accept the law of identity as a precondition for discussion and debate; that doesn’t necessarily raise it to transcendental status.

2. Who cares if it’s said that “Atheism isn’t a worldview”. You as a person have a worldview. You have a belief about the way things really are, as opposed to the way things really aren’t, hence there being no God or gods, morality, what the basic components of the universe are, etc. Thus, you have a view of the world. This type of clarification that atheists give is just silly to me.

Sure. My point here is that you need to engage my actual worldview, and not just straw-man it. One typical way in which Christian apologists often do this is by assuming that all atheists are hardcore materialists, who in turn are necessarily physicalists. Those assumptions are unwarranted.

3. If Zorbleen is said to be eternal, immutable, omniscient, all good, etc, then anyone would have a rational epistamological starting point to things such as logic and morality. But the question I would ask next is, “where is your revelation of Zorbleen?” The Christian’s special revelation is Scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Types of general revelation would simply be accounting for logic and real morality.

What’s your warrant for the claim that special revelation is a source of knowledge?

4. I’m not going to argue that strongly from induction because I don’t think it’s the strongest argument. I will say though that the Christian presupposes that God is even more natural then the “natural”. The Christian believes that this finite world is held together by God’s eternal being, thus the natural is evidence of the supernatural, we just don’t think in these terms because we experience constant uniformity. Any non-uniformity is only non-uniform to us because we’re not as familiar with it (miracles), but still uniform to God. If miracles happened all the time, however, then we would begin to consider them to be uniform. With the argument of induction, it’s not so much that you don’t know if nature with behave just as uniform as in the past, but moreso of having a reason to “trust” it will behave as it has in the past. And if God has done miracles in the past, then we would expect Him to be the cause of them again if they were to happen. But again, me saying I trust that God will keep the universe uniform (in accordance to His promises and will) is only begging the question of His existence, hence why I don’t want to get into that type of argument. Just wanted to clarify some things.

I don’t think you’ve answered the central offensive response I’ve made here, which is that in the Christian worldview, we would not expect a reliable world from which induction is possible, because the Christian explicitly holds out the possibility of a nonconforming miracle at any time.

5. You can’t explain the Trinity with logical formulas. If you study the doctrine of the Trinity you wont get very far because you’ll run into a paradox. It is believed that the essence of the oneness of God in contrast to the essence of the 3 persons of God is different yet similar in a way we ants can’t fully grasp. We can come to conclusions of the Trinity, but we can’t really do those conclusions justice because of our ant brains. And as a Christian I’m fine with this because while I believe that the laws of logic are characteristic of the personal and not the impersonal, I believe God’s person is way beyond my own, which I can barely even grasp.

That’s fine. However, when you concede that God operates by a “different” logic, you’re necessarily admitting that the laws of logic are not transcendent and universal, and thus TAG fails.

Remember that my goal here is not to convince you to give up Christianity; you can believe what you want to believe. My goal is to convince you that it is rational for me to be an atheist, and that the apologetic arguments telling me to give up atheism lack sufficient justification. I think I’ve done that.

6. You can’t enforce that in an alternative universe with no minds that 1 + 4 = 5 puppies. This is begging the question. In that universe there are no such things as “puppies” or “1″ or “plus”, etc. This is attempting to argue outside of your mind and act neutral to the dilemma, yet you can’t! You can’t think from “nature’s” standpoint. You can only think by use of the laws of logic. You don’t say that the sun isn’t also cold because it isn’t, but only because the laws of logic force you to say it isn’t. All of reality, even all your 5 senses, must be filtered through the laws of logic in order for you to perceive what you believe to be reality. This is what Matt D’s girlfriend or whatever didn’t grasp.

Okay. Again, I think this response concedes that the TAG is groundless.

7. And if you have a hard time with the Trinity accounting for abstract, universal, and transcendent laws, then what IS your foundation after all?

I would say that there are no abstract, universal, transcendent laws; that everything we think of as an abstract universal law is either the product of a reasoning mind (such as morality) or descriptive of the universe (such as the fact that 1 + 4 = 5).

I would argue the laws must be eternal and come from an eternal mind.

1. How does the finite and the logic-less bring about absolutes?
2. How come something be absolute unless it’s eternal?
3. The laws of logic are relational because they are used for knowledge and communication. Thus, whatever source they come from is most likely personal.
4. Maybe you you believe there is an eternal personal source but are agnostic about what it is. If so, that is fine. I would call whatever that thing is “God” though.

Respectfully, I’m not sure that these questions/points make sense. We know that the human mind can bring about absolutes thanks to Immanuel Kant. So that really covers your first two questions. Your next two points assert that something used for knowledge and communication comes from a personal source, and I just don’t see the warrant for that assertion.

I think the more parsimonious explanation for the “laws” of logic is that they are the product of human brains and are a convention we accept for discussion and debate. The fact that we see people who are unable to grasp the “laws” of logic is pretty strong evidence that those laws emanate from an earthly and not an otherworldly source.

About these ads

8 Comments »

  1. Cameron said,

    Thanks for making a thread all for me. I am actually honored! Please forgive my book. I look forward to a respectful and hopfully intellectually honest discussion.

    1. (part 1) I’m pretty sure you’re refering to the double-slit experiment when saying that single particles can be in one place and not in one place simultatneously. The reason for this is because it is assumed that when one particle is fired, that it must be interfering with itself instead of something else (that we havne’t yet discovered). Quantum mechanics is the most interesting, yet confusing and unknown realm of study (I believe). You’re really just appealing to what is still a great unknown to conclude that “we don’t know that logic is absolute”.

    I would simply say that if meanings aren’t absolute, then we can’t know anything and can’t communicate. There’s really no middle ground, hence the 3 law of excluded middle. Either they are absolute and we can think logically, or they aren’t absolute and we can’t think logically.

    (part 2)

    I’m not sure what you’re saying about “the fundamentals of the universe”. I believe the laws are transcendent, thus are not predicated on the Universe, only implied upon our minds which exist in the universe and conceptualize the physical and the non-physical.

    And your example of different languages using different words for the same meanings has nothing to do with the law of identity. I hear this argument a lot. One of the things we must account for, in terms of the LOD is where/how meanings are derived. Our meanings don’t derive from our words but our words are used to refer to common meanings. That’s why we can say “car” or “carro” and have the same meaning. That’s what is meant by the laws of logic being universal. We all share the same meanings, not the same languages. We must ask where these meanings derive from then, which gets into them being trascendent which I’ll get into more below.

    2. I assume that most atheists are Materialists, because most that I have come across are. I don’t believe that all without exception are, however. I’m not assuming what you believe. I’d rather ask you. What kind of atheist are you? How do you define the “god” you lack belief in, and would there be any possible definition of “god” you would accept?

    3. a) I believe everyone requires that which is certain to make itself known to us if we are to be certain about anything. Otherwise we are left with induction. Any deductions must be taken by faith. I personally believe that Christ is this certainty and has revealed Himself to me though His gospel. So if you’d like I would be happy to share the gospel with you in case it is real and would have the same effect.

    b) Anyhow, for our purposes I will stick to induction, the only alternative. Scripture is the only sacred book which reveals a being that is both one and many (which accounts for more then I want to get into right now). Further, this being is rationally a precondition for morality and logic since He is a Trinity, all good, immutable, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, etc. These are my assertion which I don’t want to explain right now. Just wanted to state that the God of the Bible comports with all of reality, not the other way around. Even if it was said that the Bible is false, I would still look to a “god” extremely similar (for purely rational reasons). I just would have no special revelation of one (through writing).

    4. With the “problem of induction” I would mostly conclude that if the Christian worldview is true, then we have a greater bases for trusting induction. If God upholds this universe within His own being, and does so to carry out His purposes, then He would for the most part keep it uniform. If God keeps His promises and says that everyday life experience will continue until He returns for judgment, then I would have every reason to trust induction and do so with confidence. Therefore, even if God does miracles in the future, I still have confidence that we at least wouldn’t get launched into a black hole, or the whole Universe turn purple.

    5. I never said that God operates by a different logic. I simply said that what it is for God to be a person is in some ways similar yet infinitely beyond what it is for me to be a person. I believe that the laws of logic (laws of thought) are only a description of the way God thinks. The laws aren’t prescriptive for God because God is eternal. There was never a time when God didn’t think logically and didn’t know everything qualitatively and quantitatively. But we prescribe that God must not stop thinking logically (how He eternally thinks), in order to remain logical. But by definition of eternal, this prescription for God is precluded. In otherwords, God is the prescription. There was a time when we began to think logically, thus we can say the laws of logic are prescriptive to us. We must think the way God thinks in order to think, and must not stop thinking the way He thinks in order to think.

    6. TAG can argue for the existence of God in many ways. In fact, I would use the laws of logic to first argue for TAM, which I just made up and means (Trancendental Argument for the Metaphysical). Then I would try to show how a being who is one and many can best account for TAM.
    a) If meanings are abstract, then they aren’t material (I’m defingn the abstract as non-physical).
    b) If meanings are real, then they are absolute. If they aren’t absolute, then the meanings can change, thus what “2″ means can eventually mean “house”, thus meanings wouldn’t really mean anything. I believe even Matt D holds to the laws of logic being absolute.
    c) The law of excluded middle explains the laws of logic as needing to be fixed and absolute. If A is really A and really not non-A, then it must always be A and not non-A and must have always really been A and never non-A.

    7. I’de like to ask you what you think the most basic component of “reality” is in your worldview? Maybe atoms, particles, or “marbles” if you will. Then please tell me how this basic component of reality is a rational derivative for the meaning of “4″, “addition” and “equal”. I’d further like to challenge you on morality but this thread wont allow for the space. I believe in a real morality where things are really right and really wrong which we are really accountable to, thus must be prescriptive, not descriptive. And if my premises from point 6 are true, and meanings are abstract and absolute, then they would be transcendent, since they would “transcend” the physical and the finite (either us or the Universe, or both).

    8. What did Kant say about finite human minds being able to make things absolute? So we can make the meaning of “addition” absolute? That would mean we can make it non-absolute, thus there be no such thing as addition.

    So something that is used for knowledge and communication doesn’t come from a personal source to you? You don’t see any warrant for this assertion? Then NASA is wasting time and money to send math formulas (“a universal language”) into space. They are doing this so the aliens will know there is intelligence on our ant planet. So it seems that NASA can concieve of this connection, but you can’t? Why?

    The laws of logic are a product of the human brain? So tell me what in our brains 1. gives us fixed abstract meanings, and 2. says we ought to not contradict, in order to think rationally?

    Thanks,

    Cameron

    • Andrew said,

      Cameron,

      1. … You’re really just appealing to what is still a great unknown to conclude that “we don’t know that logic is absolute”.

      That’s exactly right! Since TAG is an argument that requires you to presume that logic is absolute, the burden is on the person making it. If we can’t substantiate that premise, the argument fails.

      I would simply say that if meanings aren’t absolute, then we can’t know anything and can’t communicate. There’s really no middle ground, hence the 3 law of excluded middle. Either they are absolute and we can think logically, or they aren’t absolute and we can’t think logically.

      I addressed that already. We can agree to the conventions of logic for the purposes of discussion and debate without those conventions becoming necessarily transcendent and universal. Again, this shows that premise 1 of TAG is not warranted.

      (part 2)

      I’m not sure what you’re saying about “the fundamentals of the universe”. I believe the laws are transcendent, thus are not predicated on the Universe, only implied upon our minds which exist in the universe and conceptualize the physical and the non-physical.

      And your example of different languages using different words for the same meanings has nothing to do with the law of identity. I hear this argument a lot. One of the things we must account for, in terms of the LOD is where/how meanings are derived. Our meanings don’t derive from our words but our words are used to refer to common meanings. That’s why we can say “car” or “carro” and have the same meaning. That’s what is meant by the laws of logic being universal. We all share the same meanings, not the same languages. We must ask where these meanings derive from then, which gets into them being trascendent which I’ll get into more below.

      The obvious response here is W.V. Quine’s ‘gavagai’ example. Again: you’re asserting that things are universal, and I’m showing you that there isn’t a sufficient justification for that assertion.

      [snip 2, 3a and 3b, since you concede these are assertions or personal beliefs]

      4. With the “problem of induction” I would mostly conclude that if the Christian worldview is true, then we have a greater bases for trusting induction. If God upholds this universe within His own being, and does so to carry out His purposes, then He would for the most part keep it uniform. If God keeps His promises and says that everyday life experience will continue until He returns for judgment, then I would have every reason to trust induction and do so with confidence. Therefore, even if God does miracles in the future, I still have confidence that we at least wouldn’t get launched into a black hole, or the whole Universe turn purple.

      If you don’t see the contradiction between the notion that the laws of nature are absolute and unchanging (thus permitting inductive reasoning) and the idea, in your words, that God “for the most part keeps it uniform,” then I’m not sure I have much to add.

      My point here is that under the premises of TAG, the atheistic worldview is actually more probable than the theistic one.

      5. I never said that God operates by a different logic. I simply said that what it is for God to be a person is in some ways similar yet infinitely beyond what it is for me to be a person.

      You said: “You can’t explain the Trinity with logical formulas. If you study the doctrine of the Trinity you wont get very far because you’ll run into a paradox.” That says that God is not constrained by logic, which again tells us that TAG isn’t true.

      [snipping 6, which you concede is contingent on TAG]

      7. I’d like to ask you what you think the most basic component of “reality” is in your worldview? Maybe atoms, particles, or “marbles” if you will.

      “Manifestation.”

      Then please tell me how this basic component of reality is a rational derivative for the meaning of “4″, “addition” and “equal”.

      It isn’t. Those things are abstract concepts for which we create signifiers in the human brain.

      I’d further like to challenge you on morality but this thread wont allow for the space. I believe in a real morality where things are really right and really wrong which we are really accountable to, thus must be prescriptive, not descriptive. And if my premises from point 6 are true, and meanings are abstract and absolute, then they would be transcendent, since they would “transcend” the physical and the finite (either us or the Universe, or both).

      I answer that argument here.

      8. What did Kant say about finite human minds being able to make things absolute? So we can make the meaning of “addition” absolute? That would mean we can make it non-absolute, thus there be no such thing as addition.

      ???

      So something that is used for knowledge and communication doesn’t come from a personal source to you? You don’t see any warrant for this assertion? Then NASA is wasting time and money to send math formulas (”a universal language”) into space. They are doing this so the aliens will know there is intelligence on our ant planet. So it seems that NASA can concieve of this connection, but you can’t? Why?

      No, NASA is using the SETI program to search for intelligence similar to ours, not because math is a “universal language.”

      The laws of logic are a product of the human brain? So tell me what in our brains 1. gives us fixed abstract meanings, and 2. says we ought to not contradict, in order to think rationally?

      I don’t understand (1). (2) is obvious; just consider cognitive dissonance, for example.

  2. Cameron said,

    That’s exactly right! Since TAG is an argument that requires you to presume that logic is absolute, the burden is on the person making it. If we can’t substantiate that premise, the argument fails.

    We can substantiate that the the laws of logic are absolute. This is simple. They are absolute by definition. Meanings either exist or they don’t exist. They do exist. I’m using them right now and so are you. If the meanings I’m using can change then you have no basis to make sense of my meanings in this reply. If meanings can change then we can’t have real knowledge of anything. You might say I am wrong, and the meaning of “wrong” could change to “right”. Then you’d be saying I was right.

    I addressed that already. We can agree to the conventions of logic for the purposes of discussion and debate without those conventions becoming necessarily transcendent and universal. Again, this shows that premise 1 of TAG is not warranted.

    Meanings aren’t conventions. Only the sounds we use to refer to those meanings. I pointed that out already and you skipped over it.

    Again: you’re asserting that things are universal, and I’m showing you that there isn’t a sufficient justification for that assertion.

    Meanings are universal for anyone who wants to have knowledge. In other words, the same meanings must apply to all who want to think logically.

    If you don’t see the contradiction between the notion that the laws of nature are absolute and unchanging (thus permitting inductive reasoning) and the idea, in your words, that God “for the most part keeps it uniform,” then I’m not sure I have much to add.

    My point here is that under the premises of TAG, the atheistic worldview is actually more probable than the theistic one.

    I believe it’s more probable to trust a being who is holding the universe together for its purposes then “?”. Especially if that being is holy and it’s purposes are good. Just like I would trust my purchase of a car knowing who made it and what it was made for as opposed to “?”.

    You said: “You can’t explain the Trinity with logical formulas. If you study the doctrine of the Trinity you wont get very far because you’ll run into a paradox.” That says that God is not constrained by logic, which again tells us that TAG isn’t true.

    That would assume the Trinity is only constrained by logic in the sense of our ability to explain Him. There’s no conventions of human language which can explain the Trinity, but we can try to come to conclusion with what we currently have. But God is “constrained” by logic in the sense that if He is to know anything then He must be logical. But since I believe God is eternal, and is ultimate reality, then I have no problem with saying that logic is nothing other then God’s logic, a reflection of His own nature and mind.

    snipping 6

    So you accept that there is a metaphysical realm? You’d be the first atheist I’ve ever met you accepted that. I’ve also heard of the abominal snowman, but have never seen it.

    “Manifestation”

    So is “manifestation” finite or infinite or eternal? Does “manifestation” tell you what abstract meanings are and that they shouldn’t contradict? If so then I would refer to “manifestation” as God. Or is something besides “manifestation” doing this? Whatever that thing is, I would also call God.

    It isn’t. Those things are abstract concepts for which we create signifiers in the human brain.

    I agree they’re abstract. We create them? So we created the concept of “addition”, or is “addition” a reality that is implied upon our brains? I grant you we can create new words like “tv” which refer to the reality of other meanings. “Tv” refers to its function. But addition is the function of addition. It is a reality that can’t be created or destroyed. And I agree the abstract realities (concepts) are in our brains b/c our minds are in our brains. Do abstract concepts come from the physical brain, or just correlate to the physical brain to you? I believe the latter.

    ???

    So what did Kant say about absolutes?

    Lastly, I wanted to bring up the quantum argument about nature contradicting itself. There is a difference between explaining the behavior of “nature” and the laws of logic. We must ask what each functions for. What do particles function for? What do the laws of logic function for? We could state: a particle must have down spin and simultaneous up spin for ___? Or a particle must be in one place and simultaneously not be one place for ___? Or the laws of logic must be in place in order for us to have knowledge about anything. The first two may have answers or opinions. Either way, the third is answered. The laws of logic must be in place for us to think. Otherwise we wouldn’t even be able to consistently know that “up spin” was as opposed to “down spin”, what “simultaneous’ means, or what “contradiction” means, etc. Thus, we couldn’t even do science and know that particles seemingly contradict without the laws of logic.

  3. David Ellis said,


    I think you’re missing the point of this argument, which is that electrons can violate the law of identity (A=A) by being both particles and not-particles at the same time.

    I don’t pretend to be a physicist but I suspect the double split experiment does not violate the law of identity but simply indicates that both descriptions of the nature of electrons, as waves or as particles, are imperfect—-electrons have properties that seem analogous to waves and properties that seem analogous to particles but maybe its simply neither and we don’t have a good description of what it actually is.

  4. Cameron said,

    I agree David. And just to repeat to everyone what I stated above, even if phenomenon in nature does behave contradictory in every respect, this only helps us describe how nature is performing. However, with the laws of logic, they prescribe how we ought to think, in order to really think. When we compare the descriptive with the prescriptive, we are comparing apples and oranges.

    Or even if we say nature must contradict itself in order for it to operate the way it does (which actually assumes purpose and design – a Christian leaning), it is entirely another thing to say that logic too can contradict itself. This is an unwarranted leap in argumentation. Again, the laws of logic must be in place, otherwise, we can’t think logically. Otherwise, thinking illogically could also be logical. Thus, my argument could be “Thfiewl jklfs fdksl” and you’d have no way to deny it, or you would, or you wouldn’t, I mean… huh?

    • Andrew said,

      We seem to be at an impasse. You keep making some variant of the “Thfiewl jkfs fdks!” response, which I’ve responded to on multiple occasions. To reiterate: this isn’t an argument for what you want to prove. The fact that we agree on conventions of logic as a precondition for rational discussion and debate proves only our agreement, not the transcendence of the underlying properties. As I said:

      I think the more parsimonious explanation for the “laws” of logic is that they are the product of human brains and are a convention we accept for discussion and debate. The fact that we see people who are unable to grasp the “laws” of logic is pretty strong evidence that those laws emanate from an earthly and not an otherworldly source.

      As far as I can tell, you’ve never responded to this, just reiterated your initial claim. If I’ve missed something, please let me know.

  5. Cameron said,

    Can you talk in English and not sound like you’re from “Haaaaavard”? You mean I haven’t shown how the laws of logic are transcendental?

    First of all, I only agreed that the words we use to refer to meanings are conventions. That is entirely different then saying the meanings themselves are conventions.

    I said the laws of logic correlate to our brains, not derive from them. You are making the assertion (or the positive claim) that abstract identities can either be derived from our brains. They can’t entirely be derived from our brains because our brains are only physical and finite. The laws of logic are abstract and absolute (absolute thus meanings can’t change. If they were finite, or created, they can be created to be something else).

    So I am saying they transcend the natural realm because the natural realm doesn’t possess abstract realities which must be absolute (prescriptive).

    You say we accept them for discussion and debate. Accept what? Where are these abstract meaning we are “accepting”? Where did you locate yours? Under a rock? In some atoms? And once you find them, why accept those meanings and not change the meanings? Why not accept meanings to mean something else? Is that because they must be absolute in order for you to use them? Thus everyone else must use the same meanings if they are going to communicate with you (universal)? Oops.

    What do you mean people are unable to grasp the laws of logic? They would be using the laws of logic to even say “I don’t understand the laws of logic”. The laws of logic aren’t predicated upon people’s understanding of them. In fact they are really simple to understand. It all comes down to identity or the existence of meanings.

    If this is your reason for accepting that the laws of logic are derived from the physical (our brains), and not transcendental, then be my guest. Explain, even in very simple terms, why a purely physical and finite thing (the brain) accounts for something abstract (non-physical meanings) and absolute (the meanings can’t change in order to be logical)?

  6. Cameron said,

    Andrew,

    Would you care to respond back to this anytime?

    The laws of logic can’t be a product of the human brain, because absolute meanings (identities) must be the case before we arrive, if, when we arrive, are going to be able to use them. In other words, something absolute, can’t be finite. The laws of logic are absolute. I would modify what you said and state, the laws of logic require a mind. And since they are absolute, that means they first require an eternal mind.

    Lastly, I have no idea what you mean by “people are unable to grasp the laws of logic”. Every sentient being (humans) may potentially use logic. It is the precondition to thinking or knowing anything.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers

%d bloggers like this: