Mere Christianity Part 6

Okay, let’s try this again. I am now on chapter 5, “We Have Cause to Be Uneasy,” in C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity.

At the beginning of this chapter, C.S. Lewis explains that he was trying to avoid religion up until now. That he was discussing philosophy and Christianity hadn’t been assumed yet. However, it is very clear that he was presupposing Christianity all along. Lewis supports his earlier argument by stating “We have two bits of evidence about the Somebody. One is the universe He has made.” He just finished saying that he isn’t talking about the God of the Bible, then he talks in such a way that the only possible meaning could be the God of the Bible. Who else uses capitol “H” to write “he” when it’s not in the beginning of the sentence but believers when they refer to their deity? And how is the universe evidence of a creator? The universe can only be evidence of the existence of the universe. We need evidence that it couldn’t have come about without a creator before we have evidence that it was created.

He goes on to say of the universe “If we used that as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude that He was a great artist (for the universe is a beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place).” What does he mean by “the universe is beautiful”? Does he mean visually? Because I’d agree, but it’s not beautiful the way a painting is. A painting is beautiful in an abstract copy kind of way. It isn’t quite like the original: you can see elements of the painter in the painting. The universe is more solid. It’s real. Sometimes what you see in it is beautiful, other times it’s boring. We can’t even see the real beauty without satellites and telescopes. That doesn’t sound like a creation to me. That sounds like something that we can at times find aesthetically pleasing. How does the danger in the universe suggest that God is not friend to humans? For one, most of the dangers don’t even affect us. Many we don’t even know about. And, for another, we can’t make any comment on what the universe says about the nature of it’s creator until we know that there is a creator.

C.S. Lewis hasn’t even attempted to offer any proof that there is a creator, I guess we’re just supposed to take his word for it, but he goes on to give the second thing that he believes can only come from a creator: “The other bit of evidence is that Moral Law which He has put in our minds.” Assuming this Moral Law thing did exist, how does it prove God? Or even suggest any sort of a conscious entity behind it? This is another presupposition. Before you can assume that morals mean God, you must first provide evidence that suggests that morals can’t exist without a creator. Lewis hasn’t done this.

Lewis goes on to say of morality “from this second bit of evidence we conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested in right conduct-in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty and truthfulness.” We still don’t have the evidence necessary to suggest that there is a causer behind our assumed Moral Law, so how can he then say that this shows that the causer is good?

Lewis then criticizes those of us who question his god: “And it is no use either saying that if there is a God of that sort-an impersonal absolute goodness- then you do not like Him and are not going to bother about Him. For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and really agrees with his disapproval of human greed and trickery and exploitation.” It’s not clear here who he’s criticizing though. Is he suggesting that atheists merely don’t like God? Or is he criticizing certain Christians who don’t think that God is an impersonal absolute goodness? What would an impersonal absolute goodness god even look like? Because, according to the Bible and every Christian I’ve ever met, God is very personal. After all, he talks to people, helps them, and interacts with them. Of course, if this were true (today), it could be tested. But people still claim that they interact with God on a personal level. God is also not absolute in a good portion of the Bible. He even admits to over reacting at times. That doesn’t sound like absolute goodness to me. Though the definition of good is “that which is morally right,” so, if God created morality, how can he be anything but good? At least if we define everything he does as necessarily moral as a result. Or if he follows all of his own rules. And how can he say that everybody is on God’s side? Isn’t that presumptuous? It seems to me that some people would prefer it if exploitation was perfectly acceptable. Look at Wall Street, or pay-day loan places.

Lewis goes on to state that “we know that if there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do.” What reason do we have to believe that this creator of absolute morality hates us? What do we do that’s so terrible? Is this absolute goodness unable to accept imperfection and mistakes? Don’t we consider forgiveness to be part of morality? Or can we be moral and never forgive? Is hate moral? I fail to see how Lewis’s claim makes any sense. He then claims “If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all of our efforts are in the long run hopeless.” How? Where is his evidence that hope and success require a creator of some sort? This is another presupposition. Hope can be had without need of a god, Lewis just wouldn’t have listened to anybody who told him as much.

Lewis finishes his “non-Christian” bit by saying “He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies.” Why do we need an ally? What do we need an ally from? And how did we make ourselves his enemies? This sounds very paranoid to me. Very much “the end of the world is neigh.”

Lewis then begins to discuss things from a Christian perspective. Unfortunately, this bit isn’t very meaningful because he presupposed the Christian God from the beginning.

14 responses to “Mere Christianity Part 6

  • ascientificchristian

    Lewis pre-dates Dawkins; he was not anticipating the future trend to interpret science as lacking the need for a creator. Until recently, it was common to assume that the existence of something and not nothing pointed to SOMEONE who made everything. Lewis falls firmly in that older camp. While Lewis perhaps should have been able to foresee this trend, he didn’t, and I think it is unfair to critique him for not making an argument that he wasn’t trying to make.

    Please consider that there are as many assumptions at play in the “scientific” materialistic worldview as there are in the religious one. You cannot disprove either starting with the assumptions of the other. Rather, we must all explore the cohesiveness of our worldview, and change our minds if we find errors present.


    • hessianwithteeth

      So this is an issue of history and science, and has nothing to do with Dawkins. If we going to talk about the trend of not needing to describe the unknown in terms of a Deity (now know commonly as the God of the gaps) we need to understand that his tend existed the the manner we largely still see it in as in the early days of the enlightenment.

      This isn’t to say that every enlightenment thinkers thought in the terms of explaining things without need of a God, but there where many prominent thinkers from the time. (oft disliked by the church, but that was the case for basically anyone refuting the bible in anyway) A few names here

      Though I’m not a historian, and Hessian does not have a focus in this time period or topic. So to be more specific I’d need to do research, but I can say with certainty the Richard Dawkins is not a novel in his basic premises. The early United States of America was full of freethinkers, deists, agnostics and atheists. Plus Everyone is mad a Dawkins these days, including most atheists I know. When he talks outside his field of evolutionary biology he’s often just talking out his ass, so a bad example all around.

      “Please consider that there are as many assumptions at play in the “scientific” materialistic worldview as there are in the religious one.”

      I have considered this and I disagree. This logical claim is false when you hold it up it under scrutiny. Yes there are basic assumptions in both, but Religions tend to make untestable assumptions. Science by its very design tests its base assumptions all the time, while religion holds its assumptions as unalterable truth.

      Science can change under it’s own perimeters to better match the truth, religion defines itself as truth, but just because you say something is true does not make it so.

      Now each religion and religious sect make it’s own claims, so there is no one counter argument to rule them all when discussing religions (a poorly defined word to boot). However to say that all assumptions are equal, and that all religion make the same number of assumptions as science would be a fairly easy thing to refute, all I need to do is find one. Even then you’d still need to prove to men that the assumptions made are truly equivalent, so feel free to define your assumptions for your religious views and I’ll get back to you.

      Assumptions of Science which I will steal from the Berkly Website (because I like them and think they are accurate enough for this discussion) are:

      There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
      Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.
      There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.

      While these assumption may never be know to 100% certainty, they certainly are testable. Are yours?



      • ascientificchristian

        Hi Withteeth,

        To your first argument: I am by no means a historian, and I can see that I was in error on this point. Thanks for correcting me. But let me clarify my original point: I was referring to Dawkins more as an ideology rather than as an individual; it is my opinion that books like “The God Delusion” made the ideas of Hume, etc., more common among the layperson to whom Lewis was speaking, although clearly they have held deeper historical roots than that.

        I am happy to accept Berkeley’s statement of assumptions underpinning science, and I think it summarizes the main point well. (I also like Berkeley, especially as I have affiliations with Cal. It is definitely a place where interesting discussions abound. One thing I like about Berkeley is that it doesn’t hide from the fact that science is based upon a set of non-provable assumptions.) These assumptions are, in fact, not testable; the best you can do is to see if they are logically consistent. The idea of testing something depends upon first accepting those three points as true. You cannot prove these three points are true; you can only demonstrate that it is useful model that does not have an obvious inconsistency. If you see a way to test these assumptions, please tell me what it is! [While those three points are logically consistent, I personally think it is inconsistent to hold that there are ONLY “natural” causes. (I put natural in quotes because it is a poorly defined word.) This is most clearly seen in the question: how did the world get here? Why is there something and not nothing? We generally hold that every effect requires a cause, in fact the first assumption implies it; it’s hard to argue that existence of anything isn’t an effect, so there needs to be a cause. While you may disagree with this argument, it is a common one, and I have yet to hear a satisfactory materialistic answer against it.]

        The religion that I hold doesn’t claim to know all of the truth, but instead claims to believe in the One that is Truth. This means that my understanding of what is true may be false. You might thing of it more as a claim that capital-t Truth exists, rather than a claim to own it. I do not think that I have a provable argument that my religion is more right than others, including atheism. But, I don’t think that other religions (including atheism) can prove that I’m wrong, either. I’m saying that everyone unavoidably holds to a set of assumptions about the world. (For instance, how do you know that you aren’t a player in an elaborate computer code created for some higher creature’s amusement? Yet I highly doubt that you believe that’s what you are.) Being a religious person doesn’t entail dismissing the assumptions of science per se, but more wrapping them up in another assumption that explains them. I believe in a God who ordains the natural world and endowed it with agency, who designed the world to be rational and reproducible, and who created people with the facility to explore and understand the world he created. He accomplished this creation by means of evolution, and he did it for the sake of his own glory. So actually, religious assumptions are, in a way, deeper and more fundamental than scientific ones.


      • hessianwithteeth

        Well first I’d would like to refute your refutation, the scientific assumptions I forwarded are testable, not just consistent. We would be able to figure out from that if the universe did not meet those assumptions. Either by identifying an external “supernatural” force suspending “natural” laws, or by being unable to get consistent results, and also unable to explain why they are not consistent. These would not be easy things to find, but if we ever find one, we will know that those assumption are wrong.

        It isn’t a question of if it can be prove right with compete certainty, it’s a question of if we could prove it wrong. It’s this matter of risk that make the probabilities are to weigh in one favor or another.

        It is unlikely that there is a god because that whenever we try to explain something with a god or gods in the past it has turn out to have a non-divine cause. I’m pretty every single thing we have explained with science today was at some point attributed to one deity or another.

        Gods have had a terrible track record and science has had a great one in terms of explanatory power. “God did it!” does not compare to quantum physics, Biology, Chemistry, psychiatry.. ect. As we’ve moved from primitive notions such as personified nature in the form of Gods and tried to explain the world within a scientific mindset we have truly learned thing about our world, our galaxy our universe. where only a couple centuries ago, an unimaginably tiny part of our species history.

        So no, theories which can’t be tested, which can never be shown to be wrong, are not a good as theories which can be show to be wrong. With out some metric to measure by we are rudderless , left purely to the whims (“truths” dictated by) of the powerful few controlling society.

        Plus gods have had a terrible track record when used to explain things in the past, and there’s no evidence for any of them, plus many are logically impossible.

        Science 100% Gods 0% where ever Science has tread on what was formerly held solely by gods. (See God of the Gaps: )

        You can believe in thing you have no good reason to believe in I couldn’t stop you if I wanted too, but you haven’t got any good reasons for believing in what you do except maybe in make you happy or fulfill some feeling you may have.

        Which for the record I don’t think is a good reason to believe is something, I think good evidence is the only reason to believe in things, and making assumption where otherwise you’d have no where to go. Like when your trying to create an epistemology.

        But If you truly are interested with truth, I don’t know if you are, then your better off abandoning this untestable claims in favor of testable ones. Otherwise you logically could believe in anything. (Some gods are said to be omnipotent and are said to be able to surpass logic)

        You already don’t belief in most magic sky people including the the Abrahamic gods, flying spaghetti monster, pixiess, demons, Cuthulu, and the invisible pink unicorn that created everything last Thursday. Why keep a deistic one hanging around. You already said you can’t prove it to be false so you can’t ever know it to be true unless that God prove itself to you in a way that can’t be explained by mental illness, or a hallucination. I’ve never heard of that happening (hence why I’m an atheist) so why not take that last few steps and take to truth seeking?


        • ascientificchristian

          My goal here is to earn your respect for myself and my beliefs, on the behalf of both myself and intellectually minded religious people everywhere. I do not expect this intellectual conversation to change your mind, but I do hope that you might be willing to be more open-minded about the logical possibility of religion.

          “[T]he scientific assumptions I forwarded are testable, not just consistent. We would be able to figure out from that if the universe did not meet those assumptions. Either by identifying an external “supernatural” force suspending “natural” laws,..”
          This does not actually address the scientific assumptions, but instead tackles the idea if all causes are ONLY natural. You’ll note that Berkeley’s formulation leaves this point open-ended. The scientific method does not depend upon an assumption that supernatural causes don’t exist, but rather that natural causes are consistent, repeatable, and informative.

          “…or by being unable to get consistent results, and also unable to explain why they are not consistent. These would not be easy things to find…”
          This does not in fact test anything, but rather shows the consistence of the scientific method. I have already granted that the scientific method is indeed consistent. Our discussion is now about something that is outside the realm of science: can supernatural causes exist? Simply saying that you they haven’t been scientifically verified means nothing. Supernatural causes are, by nature, not testable; they are not repeatable or study-able, so of COURSE they cannot be demonstrated by science. You have done nothing to say that supernatural ideas aren’t possible. I am trying to convince you that you have no more evidence to believe that supernatural causes AREN’T possible than I have to believe that they ARE.

          I am firmly positioned beside you in my resistance to the God-of-the-gaps philosophy. This viewpoint portrays a fundamental misunderstanding of who God is and how he relates to the world. God is the primary cause that causes all other causes. Let me give you an example of this tiered cause structure: say there is a pot boiling on the stove, and you asked why the water was boiling. I could tell you that heat from the fire was transferring kinetic energy to the water and was promoting a phase transition, and that would totally be true. Or, I could tell you that it was because I wanted a cup of tea, and that would ALSO be true. Neither narrative negates the other, but both together paint a full picture.

          I’m not arguing against science as a useful way to explore truth and the world. Clearly I support science, I’m getting my PhD in chemistry from an R1 institution! However, you seem to hold some variant of the position that we are here because of random chance; I hold to the position that we are here by the ordinance of a divine, loving creator. Yes, my position gives me comfort, and yes, that does impact my belief of it; yet, I sincerely believe that I would change my mind if you could prove to me that I was wrong. However, I believe that that proof does not, in fact, exist.

          It seems to me that you are offended by the possibility of a god (or God) being real, and if we are to continue this conversation, I’d be very interested to get into that issue.


          • hessianwithteeth

            So we are clear I inherently respect people, you have to do or say some nasty things before I will lose respect in you. I haven’t heard anything from your comment that would give me cause to lose respect in you, you seem to be a decent person, and to say more would be folly since I honestly know next to nothing about you. That said you’re asking me to respect both you and your beliefs. I respect you and I do respect your beliefs, but more over you seem to want me to show equal respect to your beliefs. However, I have already stated that I do not think they are of equal standing, and given reasons . I will go back into your arguments one again and try to reformulate my refutation again to be clearer. If I said I respected your view as equal I would be lying and I would be over selling what you’d said so far. I’m sure you can do better and I hope I can keep pressing your logic so that you can have something that even if I can’t agree too, will be worthy of my full respect

            Alright your world view and it’s limits towards understanding me are showing when you say something as coarse as “You seem to hold some variant of the position that we are here because of random chance;”

            Depending on how you define random there is may be some truth to that, but it is so simplified that it misses what I actually believe.

            I think we ultimately came from some sort of “big bang” then from that energy, matter eventually comes about, galaxies arise, and eventually our solar system was born (the exact manner how this happened I don’t know, not my fields of science or interest). From there the earth was formed and cooled enough for abiogenesis to occur and from there evolution can take its course till you get us.

            To say all of that is random it to miss the point, there is randomness involved sure, there particularities of our hesitance why be due to randomness, but our existence, life in general is just improbable, but possible. Given the size of the universe it almost impossible for there not to be other life, be it similar or radically different to our own. It isn’t random that we are here, we are here because the universe is such that sol and later the earth formed, and that these former dust clouds contains what was needed for life as we know it and that one of those rings of dust would in fact turn into our planet.

            What I’m trying to get at is that our universe is one of a largely deterministic nature. The sun and the earth formed from a dust cloud what we created from the death of a star which formed, and so on back. Where the indeterminism exists (if it exists at all) is unclear, and I don’t have the right kind of background to say anything definitive about it as a biologist. Like it probably has something to do with inflation, but any give version of inflation is one of a number of competing hypothesis for the early universe. The jury is still in session on that one.

            That is my world view is primarily deterministic with some potentially indeterminism elements (maybe, it might turn out it’s all deterministic).

            So no it’s a lot more complicated that a variation on it all came from random, in fact it has very little in the way of random elements.

            “I am trying to convince you that you have no more evidence to believe that supernatural causes AREN’T possible than I have to believe that they ARE.”

            Yes I know, and I disagree for the following reasons. Whenever Supernatural explanations have come into competition with scientific explanations the scientific explanation has won out. Scientific explanations always carry with them more explanatory and predictive power than supernatural explanations as supernatural explanations can be, in my experience be narrowed down to “The magic guy (force) did it. How? Cause it’s magic, and can do that.” Feel free to prove me wrong on that last count and show me a supernatural claim which gives more explanatory power, but be aware I will try to reduce it down to something like what I previously mentioned before I’m satisfied.

            So there you have it two reasons why my assumptions are better. First empirical evidence in the form of supernatural claims have never been able to hold their own when challenged by science. And second the case from explanatory power. What science can explain explains better than similar supernatural claims, and when it can’t it doesn’t make any claims about it other than “We don’t know yet.” where supernatural claims can only every make a claim of “magic did it, so there.”

            This may be dismissive, but supernatural claims are very weak because they lack that real useful predictive power. If magic did it then how will we know if the same magic will happen again in the future?

            “Supernatural causes are, by nature, not testable; they are not repeatable or study-able, so of COURSE they cannot be demonstrated by science. You have done nothing to say that supernatural ideas aren’t possible.”

            Let’s be clear I’m not saying supernatural causes are impossible I’m saying we have no reason to think any exist.

            If people could cast spells or call down gods, or start flying about unassisted. Then ya we could test those things and we could find out that there is no naturalist explanation for them. That would be evidence for the supernatural we could work at least partially into the frame work of science! If anything like the above happens then cool we found the supernatural! I would then be convinced there is a super natural.

            But here’s the thing. Science is concerned with what exists and occurs within reality. If you’re going to define supernatural as not testable, not repeatable or study-able, that last one being very important then you have no damn reason to think they happen at all. If you can’t study it you can’t know it’s there. Period. Though if something supernatural does happen in our reality, our universe, then it should at least be observable, and if it can be observed it can fit in science and be studied. Perhaps not well, but it can be.

            Though back to what you’ve said you have no reason to believe that supernatural events as you’ve defined them so far exist. You basically said so yourself already multiple times already. Having no reason to believe in something is a great reason not to believe is something. You don’t believe is most supernatural things I imagine for that same reason. Your just making a special case for your particular type of deity. Why not simply say “I don’t know how the universe we are part of came into existence, I would like to believe it is a deity of some sort, but I really don’t know.” Be an agnostic theist and be honest that the better answer is simply I don’t know rather then I don’t know but I think it’s a supernatural force.

            I’ll argue the point once again that naturalist world view’s have a much better track record than supernatural ones which is actually an excellent reason to not put your faith into any supernatural theories. Since so far they’ve never panned out in the long run.

            So in conclusion no your set of assumption are not as strong as mine and do not deserve equal respect because in all likelihood they will not stand the test of time. As the gaps continues growing ever smaller for a god to reside within.
            I have other things to say in regard to you make the very plutonic sounding assumption that assumptions can only be consistent with each other and not testable (except your wrong, as seen in the last post and this one that we can test a set of assumption against reality and see which one end up explaining things better).

            And no. I’m not offended at the possibility of some dishwater thin deistic deity existing. I honestly just don’t think one does nor would one impress me if it did. While I like me some fantasy and magic and if I can learn to throw some lightingbolts count me into the magic fest (and Tesla Coils are kind hard to more around and keep powered), though I have no reason believe in anything magical so ya, not going to waste my time looking.

            My suggestion is that until you have a reason to believe is something you shouldn’t even bother wasting your time deciding if you should believe in it.

            Oh and I am mildly offended, and only mildly I feel you have good if misplaced intentions, that you’d think I would treat your metaphysical views of as equal when mine. Especially when mine do a much better job explaining stuff and leave the door of exploration of truth wide open.

            We can argue all day about which view is more fulfilling, but naturalism is demonstrably better at explaining things than any type of supernaturalism.

            Thanks for the post idea though I’ll be taking these ideas to the wall as soon as I’m able.


          • ascientificchristian

            I’m sorry for offending you; that was certainly not my intent.


          • hessianwithteeth

            Oh I should mention as I wasn’t clear enough. I don’t think that you can explain supernatural forces under those assumptions, but so long as they are at all observable to can determine that they might be supernatural in nature. Since they would either lack natural explanation (you couldn’t draw and causal links from one event to another), or would be inconsistent to such an extent that you again could draw causality or correlations to our events. Obviously this would prove they are magic, but you’d have a decent reason to suspect that something interest was going on.

            Just a point that need stating.


  • Mr. Wapojif

    I think you’ll find the answer to all of this is, “God works in mysterious ways”.


  • lemoed

    Dear Hesiaanwithteeth,

    it’s been a while since I read “mere christianity” and so I cannot speak to many of the points you make. C.S.Lewis was very much a convert to Christianity and as such had very strong convictions (we all know converts are the worst, right?). If you read my blog you will notice that I am a person of faith, so feel free to read my answers here accordingly.
    I would like to point out two things I noticed:
    One: You question the beauty of the universe. It reads to me as if you are talking about the rest of the universe (as in Galaxies adn stars) when you say that we cannot see most of it and it is boring in parts. I might be wrong. I do the think the universe is beautiful. Not becuase of its aestthetic value (though, much of it is actually visually beautiful, sky at night, coral reefs, glaciers, a forest … I could go on) but more because of how it works. Everything interacts with each other, the ocean currents drive winds and weather, the atmosphere is just thick enough for the sun to not burn us and for life to not freeze to death, the movements of the stars and Galaxies drive (if mostly undetectable) how life on Earth works. The laws of phsics are universally applicable… that in my mind is the true beauty of our universe. And let us not forget ourselves, our bodies are a miracle and while I am not a fan of actually looking at digestive systems and lungs, in the abstract, they too, are beautiful. This is just a thought.
    Secondly: You ask why C.S. Lewis says that God hates us. What he is actually saying (according to your quote) is that God hates the things we do, specifically the wrong things we do. And that does not mean the same thing – I have freinds that do things I don’t agree with. That doesn’t mean I don’t like my freinds anymore or that I cannot forgive them for it.

    Thank you for making me think this morning!


    • hessianwithteeth

      But things don’t necessarily work together in the universe, or work together will. Yes, we have an atmosphere sustainable to life, but one supernova by a nearby star would blow it away. Even with our atmosphere, we’re entering our sixth mass extinction on earth. Our bodies, while effective at keeping us alive, is also effective at killing us: cancer, apendicitus, etc. Did you know that oxygen is poisonus? Aesthetic beauty I get, but beauty as a result of how well it all works together I don’t.
      And isn’t you comment about hate kind of “hate the sin, not the sinner”? I don’t know about you, but I don’t hate any part of the people I care about. Even if I don’t agree with them of everything, I don’t hate that part of them.


      • lemoed

        You seem to look at things VERY differently to how I look at them! I would say, that yes, not everything is perfect, but does that mean it is not beutiful? Imagine if our bodies couldn’t get sick – would that really make them more amazing to us? And yes, there have been many mass extinctions… but life always continued. And without those mass extinctions us humans wouldn’t exist, so I am kind of glad they happened! If everything was perfect and there were no bad things going on, we wouldn’t be able to see beauty or ugliness, the concept just wouldn’t exist. You probably disagree but I am prepared to face the ugliness so that I can also see the beauty!
        As to “hate the sin, not the sinner”. The whole point is, that you don’t hate a part of your freind, you just don’t like what he’s doing. It’s different. For example, my mother loves my father (they’ve been married forever). But my father has this thing, where he eats a peach or nectqrine and then puts the stone whereever he happens to be at the moent, leaving my Mum to find them lying around the house. It drives my Mum crazy. She hates it. And that doesn’t stop her loving my Dad!


Tell us what you think

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: