Untitled

Soft_member
Soft_member

m.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY

oh, well that clears things up!

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (159 KB, 1920x1080)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YB5iqw9cOFA
youtube.com/watch?v=ERGxVxBPTX0
youtube.com/watch?v=QfmviQcAT8Y
youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html
mega.nz/#F!DpAz2IgQ!nW7bPNnpJFk5CAV3ypiaHw
youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

massdebater
massdebater

if god made the universe then who made god?

Attached: 1499323494313.jpg (20 KB, 306x306)

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

why not tho?

Attached: Melllvar's-Mom.png (207 KB, 768x576)

Firespawn
Firespawn

Agreed. Top pseud.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

holly ffuck............

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

pretty sure god would have to actually exist in order to make anything

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

implying that which was always there must be created
What came first? The chicken or the egg?

viagrandad
viagrandad

a created being is that which has been acted upon or 'moved', a mover is therefore required. Since it is impossible to have a sequence of moved movers ad infinitum (because this would still resolve in an initial impotence) there must needs be something unmoved by which all else was created. This unmoved thing (deity) would thereby not be composite or of the same substance of anything which is created. so the question of creation in regards to deity is absurd and stems from a lack of comprehension

the attributes that such an unmoved mover would as the result of logical process have form what we (used to) conceive of as "God"

cum2soon
cum2soon

dominos

Bidwell
Bidwell

Aquinas doesn't say everything has a cause
and logically comes to the requirement of a necessary creator

Methshot
Methshot

crash course

Attached: 1472332714794.jpg (51 KB, 415x392)

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

youtube.com/watch?v=YB5iqw9cOFA
youtube.com/watch?v=ERGxVxBPTX0
youtube.com/watch?v=QfmviQcAT8Y

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

damn the boy

WebTool
WebTool

yeah but there could also be contingent creators too

Attached: 1200px-Cathar-cross.svg.png (58 KB, 1200x1200)

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

There are contingent creators. But there must be a first creator that is necessary, not contingent
listen to the third podcast

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

Okay but I'm just saying asking the question, if you invoke a God then what caused that particular God, isn't unfounded.

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

oh fuck I'm a theist now fuck you op
I have been sitting here racking my pee brain for 10 minutes about time loops and antimatter bombs and big bangs and quantum superposition and just fuck... there had to be a first...
God is literally that retarded kid who used to write "first" on cod 360 noscope compilations in my mind now...
someone send help

Attached: DIODE-Shockley-01.jpg (34 KB, 500x500)

Illusionz
Illusionz

I'd like to see this fucking social media psued-o try to summarize Kant

MPmaster
MPmaster

You're changing the definition of God. God is the name for the first cause of everything. It is fundamentally immutable, necessary, and initial.

So saying
What caused God?
is ridiculous; that is changing what we mean by the word "God."

Say we found a very power being that made humans, then we called it God—with the attributes that I listed. But later, we found out that that being we called "God" was created by something else. We would cease to call it "God," because we had discovered it is a contingent being. That does not mean its creator is God—with the attributes—, but that there must be a singular being that we can call "God" being fully justified in doing so, given that that being fits the "God" definition. We may not discover it, but Aquinas logically proved it as necessarily existing.

Do you understand it now and why that question is worthless?

viagrandad
viagrandad

No, it seems like semantics at this point. The salient point is a mind that apprehends this universe isn't necessarily the only mind that apprehends a universe.

happy_sad
happy_sad

'tis my DOODY

Bidwell
Bidwell

God is the initial, necessary and immutable first cause of everything
therefore there is a God
Truly the atheists have been defeated. Good work, knight of the faith.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

It is not semantics at all, not gonna let that slide by. Anyone smart thinks the universe had a beginning.

And are you speaking of a multiverse? It's still the same issue.

The whole point of Aquinas' arguments to to show in a general fashion that all contingent beings, things that did NOT have to necessarily exist, require one non-contingent cause to get the ball rolling for it all, so to speak.

It can't be more than one necessary creator either—Aquinas addresses this.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

tries to condescend
one premise
conclusion
learn modal logic, it's embarrassing

SniperGod
SniperGod

I'm saying this all amounts to an argument for neoplatonism, not any specific religion, especially not Abrahamism with a very specific conception of God. I am not an atheist myself.

RumChicken
RumChicken

Veeky Forums is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

Anyone smart thinks the universe had a beginning.
*simultaneously blocks your path and your most likely direction of retreat*

Attached: kant3.jpg (19 KB, 300x300)

DeathDog
DeathDog

Attached: 1521238389230.jpg (57 KB, 585x501)

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

Anyone smart thinks the universe had a beginning.

If anything, its actually at least reasonably intelligent people who propose an alternative since this is rather intuitive and taken as a first principle by geniii and dullards alike.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

lol just read the fucking Upanishads nigger and stop being gay
uh Summa Theologica, now its a Veeky Forums thread you can go back to writing your magnum opus user

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

I mean yeah, it's Platonistic. Whoever said it lead to a specific religion, though? I didn't, nor did Aquinas; that is clearly not the intention. Aquinas uses these arguments in a whole arsenal for proving his religion. I mean, how would you justify Catholicism(don't use a red herring to redirect this discussion)? We can agree you would have to justify that religion on its fundamental deistic level. Then you would move on to more theologically specific arguments.

Lunatick
Lunatick

Tl;dr: we understand physics therefore it exists and moral law=religion.
He’s not much deeper than that desu

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

This is not of a pure scientism appeal, but the scientific evidence weighs in favor of a beginning of the universe.
The intuition among scientists and subsequently Atheists was an eternal universe. Besides, I was just making a hyperbole..

happy_sad
happy_sad

The scientific evidence may well point in the other direction one hundred years from now.

Snarelure
Snarelure

Yeah it's a pretty bad argument, isn't it? Seems only natural to condescend to someone who thinks it means anything.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

I mean it may, or it may not. The possibility of it occurring it not a proof, nor evidence, any how. By saying this I do not discredit the probability of it being true, regardless of how much it slims with time, ever since the idea of the universe's beginning gains weight and support from scientific induction.

RavySnake
RavySnake

lmao the cope is real (not that user btw ;))

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

Let's see why it's bad, then; I see you talkin' it, but I wanna see you walk it, too.

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

Do you agree that God will never be a component in the empirical regress, i.e. that no matter how much we understand about the universe, that we will never be able to measure God in the Thomistic form of the unmoved mover?

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

I think that user meant that the guy who greentext'd in a condescending way made a greentext with "1 premise only" then a "conclusion"; and that is illogical.

Too, the user he greentext'd was clarifying a definition

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

the presuppositions behind the definition of god, the need for the definition, the form of the thing defined, the necessity for it and finally the idea that this is the only possible ontology are all fucking stupid

t. relatively disinterested agnostic

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Aquinas got BTFO'd years ago

youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

Yes. The scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe is inductive in two ways. It's scientific induction(I test/observe a bunch....it is highly probable that X) and it's an inductive argument for a deistic god(it's highly probable that there is a prime mover).

Aquinas provides a deductive argument from logic though; it is strong. And I say that the inductive arguments above are in favor of Thomas' proofs.

Nojokur
Nojokur

all fucking stupid
You need to elaborate.

Illusionz
Illusionz

How so?
Didn't know being thorough was
fucking stupid
I mean, we're talking about the most crucial issue of man. But you're a
relatively disinterested agnostic
and I'm surprised you even cared enough to reply given your relative disinterest, though.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

A comment from that video:

Alright, I'm just going to hit the points that are wrong here as they come. I could start out by saying that the case he's reading is not how Aquinas actually presented his case but is more of a summary, but it's not a bad summary so we should let that pass. Anyways, on to the errors!

The First Way
Firstly, solipsism would not imply a denial of motion. Most would confess it even, since they can at least see that their mind changes from one state to another. Even if their mind is the only thing that exists and that everything else is an illusion, the illusion still changes, as does their mind. A better example of someone who would deny motion would be Zeno and Parmenides.

Secondly, the point that we "cannot understand infinity". We do actually have a pretty decent understanding of it and we use the concept all the time. If you were to go around saying "We can't know that the limit of 1/x as it approaches zero! We can't understand infinity!", people would rightly dismiss you as just being silly. Similarly, Aquinas has good reason to deny that there can be an infinite chain of moved movers because to be a moved mover is essentially to be used instrumentally by what comes before you. It is a derived power, which implies that there is ultimately something it is being derived from. To use a common example, a paintbrush needs a painter to move it, and it will not move itself even if we make the handle infinitely long.

Thirdly, it does not contradict the second premise because God ISN'T in motion. Hence the reason God is an unmoved mover.

Fourthly, Aquinas goes over the reasons that this unmoved mover as necessarily being God in the third question of the Summa Theologica, while these arguments for God's existence were laid out in the second question. A blueberry muffin could not be the unmoved mover for many, many reasons. For one, the unmoved mover is something that cannot in principle be moved. Muffins can be moved. QED.

The Second Way
Fifthly, while similar, the second way is distinct from the first way. The first way looks at change in general, while the second way is looking at efficient causes. Give Aquinas a little more credit than that.

1/2

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

The Third Way
Sixthly, the "higher contingency" would still fall prey to this argument. The whole point is that you ultimately need something that ISN'T contingent to provide a bedrock for everything else.

Seventh, "we don't know of any such time" is a stupid objection because Aquinas is DENYING the existence of such a time. I cannot stress enough how much this guy is missing the point.

Eighth, we do know that there would be nothing. Nothing comes from nothing is a pretty well accepted metaphysical principle among Christians and atheists alike.

Ninth, the point that "there only needs to be one thing that isn't contingent" is precisely Aquinas' point. That thing is God.

Tenth, if blueberry muffins come into existence, then they're contingent... Does he not know the definition of contingent?

Eleventh, it has to be a "being" because it's something that exists, as in "to be". Blueberry muffins count as "beings" in this context.

Twelth, a particle does not seem more likely because that particle clearly WAS contingent. Hence the reason that big super particle doesn't exist anymore.

Thirteenth, God is not a big complicated thing. In fact, God is as simple as it gets, hence the doctrine of divine simplicity which, again, Aquinas goes over in the third question of the Summa.

Fourteenth, the question of how an uncontingent being came to be is a really, really stupid question.

2/3

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

I do not
nope. and nope

goodbye christfaggots Tat Tvam Asi

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

Aquinas isn't talking about contingencies going back in time to a theoretical beginning of the universe but instead his arguments are concerned with change happening in the now. He saw God as a sustaining our existence which is why all this talk about whether or not the universe had a beginning is irrelevant. It's not what Aquinas argued.

MPmaster
MPmaster

The Fourth Way
Next, there is an error in the summary he is reading from, or at least a poor description of what Aquinas meant (since again, he's not directly quoting Aquinas in this video but simply reading a summary of the arguments). I'll put less blame here then for AA then, especially since he recognizes this is a bad summary as well. Basically what Aquinas was arguing here is that we have gradation of being, so we need something who is "being itself subsisting". God does not need to be the fattest and the skinniest person in the world, but the fattest and skinniest people in the world would derive their limited existence on something which is pure existence.

Fifteenth, in the writings of Aquinas and Augustine, there is a strong philosophical connection between "being" and "goodness". Goodness indicates a kind of completeness or fullness of being. Attributing only positive traits to God, who is Being Itself, is not arbitrary here then. AA is once again showing exactly why he should indeed have left this to greater minds than his own (although Dawkins does a pretty bad job here too).

The Fifth Way
Sixteenth, Aquinas is arguing here that the existence of natural law implies the existence of a natural lawgiver. Saying "things happen according to natural law" isn't an objection, it's a premise Aquinas is working with in the first place.

That sums up all the objections I got in my first pass of the video anyways. A lot of these errors AA makes are understandable since Aquinas worked from a pretty solid Aristotelian metaphysical framework that AA is unfamiliar with, but all the more reason that he should shut up on matters he doesn't know anything about, especially when you're trying to say one of the most eminent minds of the entire Middle Ages was really just retarded.

3/3

King_Martha
King_Martha

You need a better reason for God himself not needing a cause than "I define him as not needing a cause."

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

Everything that is in motion is moved by something else. This cannot go on forever because if it did there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover as well. This is because second movers don't move except when moved by a first mover, just as a stick does not move anything except when moved by a hand. So a first mover which is itself unmoved by anything else is necessary to explain motion.

farquit
farquit

I think the idea would be that he is the maker of necessity and thus does not himself have to have a reason. the thing which contains all reason and necessity would itself require none as they would all be enveloped within its parameters. I don't agree with this or think this is the case

5mileys
5mileys

We don't claim to know how God is uncaused, but why it makes sense he is uncaused.

Bidwell
Bidwell

This is just the good ol' God Of The Gaps. You don't know where things came from exactly so you're sticking God in there so it makes sense to you. Have you considered that many things about the universe simply are not known yet and that it doesn't matter whether that's unintuitive?

I get that, but it's fairly silly if you aren't personally invested in the existence of a god.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

I have no grounding in my convictions

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

It's not a god of the gaps there's nothing that could conceivably come before the first mover.

Techpill
Techpill

If you admit that you can't measure God (which would make sense if he's infinite), you have to admit that the question of whether or not the universe began through God is insoluble from an empirical perspective.

At that point it's a question of reason, and to my mind the Kantian objections have not been sufficiently answered by anyone.

TreeEater
TreeEater

It's not a gap that God is filling, it's the other side, past the gap lol

Snarelure
Snarelure

God Of The Gaps

I swear this is just a stock objection from internet atheists because none of you use it correctly.

Firespawn
Firespawn

conceivably
Sounds like a personal problem.

It’s the same reasoning and is just as susceptible to being eventually shown fatuous as all the other gaps people have tried to see god in.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

Runs away from an argument like a scared chickenshit pretentious pseud

RavySnake
RavySnake

Kant believed in the validity of a priori knowledge too; sounds like you're only partaking in his thought on a posteriori knowledge.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

More to the point, though, the God of the Five Ways is not a “god of the gaps” (that is, a god who exists only to explain what science can’t). Indeed, natural laws and forces require His action in order for them to exist, and He isn’t logically prevented from working through natural processes.

seen this before

DeathDog
DeathDog

Kant believed in the validity of a priori knowledge too
That's why I said, "it's a question of reason," (a question for reason, you get what I mean). Kant's (and incidentally Schopenhauer's) objections to the three arguments have not been resolved by any modern Thomist of whom I know.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Aquinas uses these arguments in a whole arsenal for proving his religion.

Except he's not. He was writing a handbook for priest.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

So you don’t fully understand where energy and matter come from and are asserting that god must be behind it but I’m mistaken in pointing this out because this article has made the same huge assumption about the origin of matter and energy that you have.

This line is key:
natural laws and forces require His action in order for them to exist
That’s an enormous assumption, not an argument. IF that assumption is true then you’re correct but I think it presupposes a lot of things that can’t be justified.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

moot point really
oh okay, gotcha; that is interesting and fair.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

Why would Aquinas be trying to prove his religion to the people put in charge of preaching it?

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

Exactly. No god necessary.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

There can't be nothing.
Proof?
There's something.
As there is something, nothing isn't—evidently.
You can't have Nothing over there and Something here, that would give Nothing the property of boundary/length/depth. And it would so become a thing.

And so Spacetime (a something) is, and it was voidless, infinitely dense of what we call energy—the most fundamental of particles, if we can call it having separation, it's easier to comprehend the first Eternity of the universe as being a singular super-particle. "Then" the big bang happened (to us it would appear to be immediately).
The first principle, first "law", is that Nothing is impossible.

We can give Nothing an existence, and the universe Will, for arguments sake: The universe expands as there can't be nothing, it expands "faster and faster" as this fact is absolute, space is antithetical to nothing (that isn't). The universe expands on the same notion 'how can there be an edge of the universe' the Universe "agrees" so it expands infinitely.

Time is relative. There's nothing before the universe.

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

If the universe exists then who created the universe?
Hah! Checkmate fedoras!

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

People also seem unable to grasp that the universe expands inwardly. Imagine digging hole, it doesn't become taller or wider, just deeper—now imagine digging a hole inwardly; the Universe is the "white hole" astronomy once looked for. The reverse of a black hole is the universe.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

TL;DR: the universe itself is the answer, not god.

Inmate
Inmate

Yes, but its still a shitty argument to use against there being a god.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

holy fucking brainlet, the entire universe itself is contingent

Techpill
Techpill

why do you suppose that? As several posters have pointed out the ultimate cause needn't be some personal agent.

Firespawn
Firespawn

You poor fool, God doesn't need to be created, his existence is necessary.
Okay... so why does the universe need to be created?

Attached: confus.jpg (18 KB, 346x300)

SniperGod
SniperGod

To a god, but not to a separate god, as in it's a good argument against an "outside mover". I still believe in the possibility of a Bruno-god, or "willing" Arche. But it would be more like what the weirdo Mainländer said, God (the will) sacrificed "itself" for the universe. Or that the singular infinitely dense god "before" time (like an omega-black-hole containing everything in an infinitely singular presence) is now Pan (everything/everywhere) but now without a singular will.

A personal God is baby mythology.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

Meant
Not to a god, but to a separate god . . .

StonedTime
StonedTime

philosophy is a dialectic
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

Through experience we realize that effects have causes. Logically, the universe must have a cause. This is just consistent with the laws we've observed within the universe. "God" which is un caused, is not within this universe, so we have no reason to say it is bound by causality. We don't understand God, sure, but it's conception maintains a logical consistency within our universe.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

No god is outside of the universe and the begging point of creation, that does not need to be created.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

But the universe is also not "within" the universe.

whereismyname
whereismyname

Are you saying the universe is outside the universe?

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Why is crash course a show for school kids on Veeky Forums

Lunatick
Lunatick

Casuality only matters in the universe with big bang (I use 'with' as it's still going on). "Before" the big bang the universe was a singularity. WITHOUT spaceTIME. In the primordial singularity an eternity is the same as a Planck Time, everything never happens—yet all at once. There's no "before the universe".

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

2018
using arguments based on a pre-Newtonian understanding of motion

Spamalot
Spamalot

the beginning point of creation, that does not need to be created.
So...the universe.

aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html

Soft_member
Soft_member

The universe is the universe. Just because every part of a thing has some property doesn't mean the whole does.

RavySnake
RavySnake

The term motion is being used to describe the actualization of potential, or change which are ultimately philosophical concepts and are not reliant on material physics.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

Nope the universe needs a creator because it's not perfect.
And even science will tell you there are more universes.
Also Ayan Rand is shit.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

Lol bruh, look at this dude. Fucking numales.

Attached: Screen-Shot-2018-03-28-at-2.06.35-pm.png (350 KB, 504x668)

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

TFW someone talks about the ontological argument and doesn't just skip to the S5 modal ontological argument. Fucking plebs

happy_sad
happy_sad

That's the guy withe Cheetos analogy about Chads fucking his wife?

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

the universe needs a creator because it's not perfect.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Crash Course

Attached: penn-jillette.jpg (31 KB, 300x400)

farquit
farquit

Oh, hey this first video is interesting.

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

Italian theologian
wasent Aquinas French?

Nojokur
Nojokur

Attached: 4E0C46A8-41DE-4BB2-A559-F11C8AD16EFD.jpg (67 KB, 500x400)

whereismyname
whereismyname

2018
being so stupid that you can't seprerate the multiple definitions of motion

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

Unironically mentioning the Kalam cosmological argument in 2018
Even Aristotle considered this argument stupid, c'mon.

cum2soon
cum2soon

the entire universe itself is contingent
Pretty sure it isn't

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

It's not the Kalam argument.

Snarelure
Snarelure

Causality is an inherited principle. If one part of a system has a cause the induces an effect in it, i.e. a change in the system, the entire system was involved in the cause-effect relationship, even if parts of the system did not individually exhibit an effect.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

There are multiple types of causality. There is causality in the typical sense, where moment one causes moment two, and there is instant causality, where there is a cause and effect relationship between two things in a single moment. For instance, when I stand on the ground, gravity keeps me from falling off the face of the earth. It's not that gravity exerted a force on me, and then a moment later I did not fall. Rather, A force is exerted on me which causes me not to fall, all in a single instant. Thus the universe can still have a cause, just not a cause before time existed.

And even then, causality may have nothing to do with time. We just don't have empirical evidence for such a thing.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

Literally ever single one of his objections are entirely false and his counter arguments show that he didn't actually read what Aquinas actually wrote. This is fucking triggering me.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

/x/catalog

Soft_member
Soft_member

Based Baron.

takes2long
takes2long

Being is not the Being of beings

massdebater
massdebater

Kant argues that existence is not a property that things possess. This refutes the ontological argument, but at the price of concluding that being with no properties (pure being) and nothing are the same thing (Hegel's point). This is such an absurd conclusion that most people reject it on its face, and rightfully so.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

holy fucking brainlet
*tips*

RumChicken
RumChicken

Was Hegel actually retarded? If being is not a property then a being with no properties is logically inconsistent in Kant's framework.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

Who says that a being has to have properties. What's the difference between Kant's space with no objects and "nothing."

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

Kant argues that existence is not a property that things possess.
He argues that existence is not a property of the concepts of things themselves. The idea of a pyramid is not changed by saying, "a pyramid exists," the representation of the idea is merely considered hypostatized. The representation is in a different relation to the subject than in the case of an abstraction.

Things exist, but not by pure deductive necessity.

Spamalot
Spamalot

something can't come from nothi-

Attached: Virtual+Particles+Uncertainty+principle+(in+energy+&+time)+allows+production+of+matter-antimatte (60 KB, 1024x768)

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

Vacuums aren't nothing.

Sharpcharm
Sharpcharm

Conflating metaphysics with physics.
Besides Aquinas' point makes the case that even if the universe always existed then there would still need to be an uncaused cause.

eGremlin
eGremlin

I love Vlogbrothers !! I feel so smart after watching and sharing their videos :DD

FastChef
FastChef

damn, he completely misunderstands what the arguments are.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

Not that user but if something always existed could it be a self moved mover?

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit