Christians like to argue that nonphysical things exist, like numbers, and therefore a nonphysical God could exist.I don't think there are any good reasons to believe in nonphysical things. Numbers are represented in the brain as physical brain states. And then you have pairs of things in the world, or triplets of things, etc. At no point do you need to invoke nonphysical numbers to explain the universe. Just look at the physical stuff in the universe. Numbers can be understood purely in physical terms, without having to imagine extra nonphysical entities which aren't provable in any way.
How many numbers are there?
>>16517494Numbers are not a thing, they're descriptors.Mathematics and geometry are abstractions.The only physical thing about those is the brain, neurons firing, processing these as information.It's over planotists, formalism won.>muh p-zombieShut up zimbo
>>16517500An infinite quantity. But they are just mental concepts, and mental concepts are physical states of the brain. So why would there be any need to suggest that numbers are nonphysical?
>>16517520Is your brain infinitely large?
>>16517519>Numbers are not a thing, they're descriptors.>Mathematics and geometry are abstractions.That makes sense. But it doesn't make those things nonphysical. Descriptors are physical. If you have the idea of the descriptor in your mind, it's entirely physical, because your brain is entirely physical.Abstractions too. Abstractions are mental concepts. And mental concepts are physically encoded in the brain. So they're physical.
>>16517524No, but I don't think it needs to be. Surely there are also an infinite number of possible words that can be created with the Latin alphabet, but that doesn't mean our brains need to be infinitely large in order to understand how the Latin alphabet works.
>>16517563But you first said that there were infinitely many numbers, not that there were infinitely many possible numbers. What exactly is a "possible number" anyway? Sure sounds like an abstract object. There are possible numbers that no one has ever thought of, and so those numbers can't possibly be states in the brain.
>>16517648>There are possible numbers that no one has ever thought of, and so those numbers can't possibly be states in the brain.That doesn't mean they exist nonphysically. For comparison, there are possible combinations of Lego bricks that nobody has yet built. That doesn't mean those potential combinations exist in some nonphysical sense. It just means they're a possibility.
>>16517494numbers are not physical brain states.gravity is not a physical thing tho it impacts the material world.Once you get into these higher level natural sciences you can see the muddying of material vs immaterial at least as far as humans know.humans evolved to live in a very small niche of 'the world' and its not unreasonable to think things beyond this small niche exist, perhaps the niche we can observe is only 80% perhaps its only 1%.
>>16517695>gravity is not a physical thing tho it impacts the material worldIf gravity isn't physical then why is it studied by PHYSICS?>the muddying of material vs immaterial>its not unreasonable to think things beyond this small niche exist, perhaps the niche we can observe is only 80% perhaps its only 1%Of course there's a lot we don't know about the universe. Nonphysical/immaterial things could exist. But I don't think we currently have good reasons to believe they do exist.How would you verify that a nonphysical/immaterial thing exists? I suppose if you could perceive it with your senses, but you could also verify that it wasn't physical (it somehow breaks physical laws, isn't emitting or reflecting light that would be picked up by a photometer, etc). But I'm not aware of such things being discovered.
>>16517692Do possibilities exist or do they not?
>>16517720Probably not. E.g. it's a possibility that I could get a tattoo of Jesus. But I haven't, so that tattoo doesn't exist.
>>16517769But you've been saying that there are possible combinations of things and possible numbers. So what exactly are those, then, if possible things don't exist?
>>16517801Possibilities. Do you think that a possible tattoo of Jesus on my arm really exists? Surely that tattoo does not exist unless I actually have it done by a tattooist.
>>16517818I mean, all you're doing is just giving a name to the problem, not actually solving it. Plausibly, there don't exist possible tattoos, but when asked to explain how on your view there can be numbers that no one's ever thought of, your answer was that these are possible numbers, which are presumably just possible combinations of mathematical symbols. But if these possible combinations don't exist, then given the correspondence theory of truth, there can't be truths about them. So, your view just ends up having weird consequences, like that 1+1=2 was not true until someone thought of 1 and 2 for the first time, which is absurd.
>>16517864Surely "1 + 1 = 2" just describes something about the universe. The universe, we think, existed before humans did. And it probably abided by the same laws that it does now. So it probably conformed to "1 + 1 = 2" back then.Anyway, surely the numbers of 1 and 2 didn't exist before humans. Single things would have existed, yes. And pairs of things would have existed. But numbers are human concepts that we invented to refer to things in the universe.
>>16517494Did reality have a beginning?
>>16517948So then is your view that numbers refer to properties of aggregates of physical objects?
>>16517494Do thoughts exist? Obviously not since there weren't any in your post
>>16517494Why do you think God gave you the means to detect every living thing? You just have 5 senses, if you did not have any of these senses, there would be a myriad of things that you were unaware of that you are aware of now. There are many other senses that men do not have. There are insects that have antennas, maybe antennas can perceive things that our senses cannot and insects are aware of many things that we are not, because we do not have antennas. The probability of things existing that cannot be detected by our 5 senses is actually very high. Humans have invented many technologies that can detect things invisible to our senses, like frequencies and microwaves and energy. But it is very likely that we are just detecting a fraction of what those tings actually are and are not fully aware of their true form or capabilities. Maybe if we had some type of sense and we could perceive energy or frequencies it would be millions of times more detailed than what we currently think they are and can detect with our technology.It would be like a blind species detecting sound vibrations and then assuming that now they understand what sound really is. Can you really compare detecting sound vibrations with actually hearing sounds? Like voices and melodies or the roaring of an ocean? We are not aware of most of what exists around us and it is pretty arrogant to think we do. Things that can be touched, tasted, seen, heard or smelled are definitely not the only things that exist in this world.
>>16517948your just low IQ anon. the universe did exist before us and we know for a fact it didnt always follow the same rules. this is like super basic so im a little hesitant to invest any effort but here we are.your not understanding what words are. they are fundamentally limited. when i say dog im referring to the platonic idea of a dog, we all know there are different types of canines that are wildly different so there is no individual thing as a dog. but in nature there is a category emanating from a singular source that im actually referring to from which everything that could be classified as a dog emanates from. just because the singular word doesn't encompass every nuance doesnt mean what im describing doesnt exist. in that same vein is the number 1. there are many singular things in nature but usually they are made of constituent parts and so in the same way of asking is a wolf that can breed with dogs a dog or is the word useless we come to the question does one exist? well thankfully yes and we observe them in the natural world. we observe 0dimensional points in nature (the physical manifestation of the atomotos or monad) and just like the dogs common ancestor it provides a base of classification that exist in the natural world independent of us. in occlusion, words are fundementally limited but the things we are describing with them exist independently of our limited understanding especially when we can observe them in the natural world. your retarded anon. stop trying to escape meaning in life and grow up
>>16518088>It would be like a blind species detecting sound vibrationsSorry, meant deaf species.
>>16518088>>16518092OP will never respond so i wanted to show what you look like rn OP
>Numbers are represented in the brain as physical brain states.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>16518088We can use instruments to detect things our senses can’t, if you’re claiming something specific (your god) that we can’t perceive with our senses or instrument augmentation you’re proposing something without proof.
>>16517494Kys materialist faggot subhuman
>>16518413>Kys materialist faggot subhumanHe won't kill himself because he believes his life has a physical origin.You on the other hand should have no trouble with killing yourself.Boy are you unbearably stupid.
>>16517494>Numbers are represented in the brain as physical brain states.Proof?
>>16518431>Proof?When the brain is severely damaged via traumatic brain injury or dementia people forget their birth dates, addresses and can't perform addition, subtraction, multiplication or division operations in their heads.
>>16517500There's an infinite amount of numbers. Is the appropriate thing to say for people who have been trained in the use of English and math'
>>16518413>civilization progresses for thousands of years >humanity after hundreds of thousands of years discovers that actually ghosts, gods and goofy spirits aren’t actually real>we are in an amazing universe where as far as we can tell we are the smartest beings>this relevation is too much for the dumb and emotional who cannot appreciate the massive paradigm shift we have discovered Genuinely fascinating
Why spooksters hate materialism for no reason?
>>16517713>Why is it studied in physics if its not physical>https://test.mensa.no/Home/Test/en-US>we dont have good reason to believe they do existits pretty much undeniable given how we have filled out our niche and still glimpses of things beyond.>how would you verifyI think it is beyond the typical means of verification because our sensory input as we understand it can only extend so far, and to a point heuristics and 'just knowing' seems to come into play. This is not to say 'just knowing' is across the board reliable as many deranged retards claim to 'just know' but I think it shouldnt be discounted if the best among us furthest in their field make a judgement call on something which can not be verified independently.The best way forward from this point, our human limit, is to build an AI which is smarter than all humans combined.Then it can dumb down these things which we could never understand and make the unknown known to us.
>>16518693Gravity is physical, this is a bullshit argument you’re making to that anon
>>16518473because were witnessing materialistic Anti-realist. not materialism. the natural world sings of the eternal and calls us to push the limits of our understanding through the questions of being and a true materialist is aware of the goodness of truth beyond his understanding. These materialistic anti-realist abhor truth, deny being and live in a constant state of anger because of the willful ignorance. they hate those that believe they have the strength to know and revel in their perceived persecution from those that would see them be better.
>>16517965Who knows? Maybe reality is infinitely old. More science needs to be done.>>16517977I don't think that has much to do with what's at question, which is whether numbers exist as nonphysical entities.Surely numbers are just mental concepts that we invented to help describe the universe, and all mental concepts are just physical brain states, so they're physical.If numbers exist as nonphysical entities then what caused their existence? When will their existence end? I would say that numbers, as mental concepts, were created by humans. Pairs of things existed before the number 2 was ever conceived. Just like dinosaurs existed before the word "dinosaur" was ever conceived.
>>16517986You're too thick to make a counterargument>>16518088God doesn't exist>The probability of things existing that cannot be detected by our 5 senses is actually very highSuch things could possibly exist, but we have no reason to believe in them at the moment.>Humans have invented many technologies that can detect things invisible to our senses, like frequencies and microwaves and energy.These things can be perceived with the senses IF we use the right tools to measure them. So they're not entirely beyond our sensory perception.>Things that can be touched, tasted, seen, heard or smelled are definitely not the only things that exist in this world.You don't know that. You are guessing that nonphysical things exist. They might, but they might not.
>>16518092>>16518155Not going to read your verbal diarrhoea because you're using ad hominem. You're too thick to argue properly.>>16518378Of course they are. Numbers are mental concepts. Mental concepts are physical brain states. Your understanding of numbers is physically encoded in your brain in some way.Maybe we don't yet fully understand how the brain encodes information. But it clearly does, in some way. The brain is responsible for all thought.>>16518413Why are you signing your post with "faggot subhuman"? You're a faggot subhuman?
>>16518431This: >>16518445It's very clear that the brain is responsible for all thought. And the brain is entirely physical. Your understanding of numbers is physically encoded in your brain in some way.>>16518446That doesn't mean numbers exist as nonphysical entities separate from humans though.>>16518450Good post>>16518473Because they're fucking idiots
>>16518092>your just low IQ anon>your>low IQ
>>16518693>its pretty much undeniableIt's undeniable that nonphysical things exist? What evidence is there for these things existing?>just knowingI could say that I "just know" that leprechauns are real, but that doesn't mean leprechauns are real.>>16519322Of course there is truth beyond our understanding. Like distant galaxies. But what evidence is there of nonphysical things? They could exist, but there are no reasons currently to think they do.>they hate those that believe they have the strength to knowBut you were literally just talking about the limits of human knowledge, how there is truth beyond our understanding. Now you're saying that having the "strength to know", which would amount to not admitting the fallibility of human knowledge, is a good thing.
platonists in shamblesBTFO, even
>>16517494God here. When you die you fry. Lmao.
Atheists don't believe in Dark energy and Dark matter because they're invisible. Lmao.
>>16517494God here. I exist not. Lmao. Hahaha.
>>16520781nonphysical things do not exist retard
>>16517500There are ten Hindu-Islamic Numerals 0123456789 the same Plagiarized and Preached by /his/ Hindu-Islamic Board daily.
>>16520740>>16520799There is no evidence of God.>>16520781If I understand it right, dark matter isn't known to exist yet, it's hypothetical at the moment. But the reason it's thought to exist is because of OBSERVABLE effects - gravitational lensing etc.Where are the observable effects of God?>The universe is an observable effect of God!The universe could easily exist without a god. And even if you want to put God on the same level as dark matter, then like I said, dark matter is only hypothetical at the moment, so God would only be hypothetical as well.
Why do jewelry, christians, and muslims have such a difficult time understanding that Adam and Eve aren't real and that they evolved from a primate ancestor?
>>16520895I AM GOD
>>16520896IN GOD WE TRUST
he's upset lol
>>16520896>jewelry
>>16521001Everyone knows the world is run by necklaces and bracelets
>>16520945schizo amerimutts' national motto
Materialism is explanatory adequate
>>16520781It’s a placeholder/hypothesis. Just because something is invisible doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The gravity affect is measurable.So for example if you prayed for a stone to lift off the ground by Jesus and it worked, that would be good evidence. If you prayed for someone to grow their arm or leg back and it worked, that would also be good evidence.Do you understand?
>>16521168'Atoms' don't exist because I can't see them so prove 'Atoms' or fuckoff material anon.
>>16521301You don't need ghosts to make sense of atoms, is the point
>>16521301There are experiments indicating that atoms exist. Where are the experiments indicating that God exists?
>>16518445>>16520483>It's very clear that the brain is responsible for all thought. And the brain is entirely physical. Your understanding of numbers is physically encoded in your brain in some way.All this means is that there's an interplay of some kind between the physical brain and our ability to percieve the divine intellect. No one who subscribes subscribes to a metaphysical worldview denies this.
>>16521553>divine intellectLol
>>16521445where are the experiments that you exist?prove you exist christcuck. hint: you can't.
>>16521553>noone below 90 IQ denies this
>>16521605I'm an atheist, not a ChristianIf you saw me in person you'd believe I exist, right? I'm not going to post pics of myself though, you'll just have to trust that I'm a real person and not a chatbot.
>>16520470I think you're takin things the wrong way. No serius thinker believed that there was a second world compleely detached from the material world: your thought is undeniably immaterial.Thought may arise or be caused by matter by it is not material by itself. You might say that it is a state of the brain, but that is the cause for the thought: this is obvious by the fact that, while you think, you cannot even tell how the brain is modified. Therefore, your thinking is different from that physical state, since it can be clearly perceived without the knowledge of the state of the brain. Therefore, thought could be caused by the brain, but it is immaterial by itself. This is the same case for feelings: saying "it's just chemicals" is retarded, because that's mistaking the cause for its effect.You know what this means? This implies that everything your mind can do is an immaterial action, although it is physically based.
>>16521269>Just because something is invisible doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The gravity affect is measurable.No one denies that gravity exists. It's doubtable if it's material, since we only know its material effects. Something being testable doesn't mean it is material. If anything, this proves that the immaterial may exist, since it has an effect on the material.
>>16521628You do know that materialism is a metaphysical worldview right? You're not just a pseud scared of that word, right?
>>16522094>materialists believe in the divine intellectbecause you say so?
>>16517494The brain state is reacting to objective stimuli, which is occuring only in the brain. The directedness- purpose of thoughts cannot be accounted for as purely physical phenomenon. Also, graping the essences/forms which follow a causal chain to the prime mover, and the prime mover existing outside of space/time, give a solid argument for the immateriality of the intellect. If the intellect is immaterial and thus not tied to space time like the body, that means the operations of the intellect, by grasping eternal truths which are part of the essence of the prime mover, exists beyond the material realm. Reducing every single operation in the Brain to a material operation does not account for a solid truth- it is a bad argument.
>>16517494Numbers exist in the universe whether your intellect grasps them or not. They Are objectively true and exist as a concept or form. Where do they exist? Plato would say the world of forms. Aristotle would say to follow the efficient cause in a chain of metaphysical framework. Retards like Hume would say causality doesn't exist, and existentialists would say dude objective facts don't exist lmao how do you know you exist?
>>16517519Cope
>>16517519What are they describing? How are we capable of reaching truths through mathematics without needing empiricism?
>>16522812A modern computer is able to conduct pretty conplex calculations, does it have access to the divine intellect or the world of forms? Or is it just electrons chasing one another down causeways of metal?
>>16517494>Numbers are represented in the brain as physical brain statesIf I destroyed your brain, would the number 2 cease to exist? Can you also show me numbers existing as brain states?>Just look at the physical stuff in the universe.I can't look at the physical stuff in the universe and see a number. Could you show me what the number 2 looks like? What does it smell like? Where is it located? How much mass does it contain?>Numbers can be understood purely in physical terms, without having to imagine extra nonphysical entities which aren't provable in any way.This is a contradiction in terms considering "extra nonphysical entities" is intended to mean numbers. This post is a great example of how atheism directly leads to postmodernism. Ignoring for a moment that "no evidence" is a meaningless buzzword, why would you want to deny the existence of something as obvious as numbers? Perhaps the reason naturalists have such a vested interest in doing so is because of their religious commitment to naturalism, which they realize is incompatible? However, if you get the math wrong, rockets stop flying to the moon. That's as objectively real as it gets, yet OP wants you to believe numbers are all in your head. And they aren't objectively real, and they're just in my head, then there's no reason they can't just be whatever I want them to be.
>>165228431. The brain is not calculating. Thoughts are not calculations 2. The computer is not thinking. It's still just clockwork working on math.You may as well have asked him if rocks know about forms
>>16520892>There are ten Hindu-Islamic Numerals .0123456789 the same Plagiarized and Preached by /his/ Hindu-Islamic Board daily.religiously numerical characters
>>16522850If you were wrong, and what the brain was doing is similar to what a a calculator is doing (similar in the sense of being a material process). How could you go about figuring that out?
>>16522843A modern computer must be programmed. It's final cause is something that can compute and reason, the directedness of it computations has a simple cause that can be determined, not so in the operations of the intellect. The directedness of thoughts in the human brain cannot be accounted for in a purely materialistic manner.
>>16523172>thoughts in the human brain cannot be accounted for in a purely materialistic mannerYou have like an argument for this, or are you just gonna assert it?
>>16523330I did. The directedness of thought within the operations of the intellect cannot be accounted for by simply physical phenomena. Mental states are directed towards objects or states of affairs- absoluteness of consciousness can't be explained in purely materialistic terms- since they can't explain how physical processes in the brain can give rise to subjective experiences that are "about" something. Intentionality can't be reduced to correlations between mental states and mental content since they don't explain the INTRINSIC directedness of consciousness towards external objective stimuli. Mental states also carry intrinsic meaning I.E when thinking of an object, our thought isn't just a neural pattern, it's actually conceptualizing the object. The intrinsic meaning of mental states can't be reduced to physical processes in the brain. Materialistic accounts of consciousness can't explain these accounts, as such, it indicates the intellect is immaterial.
>>16523707>percieves his mental states/processes as directed>therefore they must be directednice assertion bro, now prove it
>christian goda dudebro hippie carpenter>jewish godextremely insecure and jealous old man with beard who had a wrestling match with abraham and lost>muslim godcompletely unknowable and undefinable. exists beyond the scope of creation and human sense awareness.i know which one makes most sense to me.
>>16524028your prophet (camel piss be upon him) is a pedo and you're not allowed to deny it))https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/143146>The websites that speak ill of the religion of Allah and of His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) are no different from the gatherings where people say similar things that constitute kufr. In both cases it is haraam to stay in such gatherings and it is haraam to visit such websites, except for one who will object to what they do and is able to put a stop to these offences. If he is not able to do that, and those people carry on with what they are doing, then it is not permissible to remain in that gathering and it is not permissible to visit those websites.
>>16517494not an argument
>>16523172The human brain is programmed by your DNA and then experience. The circuitry is totally different from a computer in structure and way more complicated
>>16524028It’s funny because by Muslim doctrine all of those gods are the same
>>16523903>Provide empirical evidence of you imagining and conceptualizing a tree>Can't? Then it's purely physical processesThat's the point. We can all direct our thoughts towards a specific object which has an intrinsic meaning, conceptualizing the object is not just a neural pattern. The burden of proof is on you, to explain to me through purely materialistic phenomena how mental states and conceptualizations are nothing but neural patterns.
>>16524707>The burden of proof is on youNo, actually it's up to you, to deductively prove that materialism cannot explain this (whatever directedness is supposed to be), in principle. Not that I think there's anything to explain, I don't grant that there's such a thing as "directedness" .
>>16517494I AM GOD
>>16517494IN GOD WE TRUST
>>16524707Anon I’m mostly concerned as to why you think you thinking about a tree isn’t being done by your brain.
>>16524987great-grandpappy!
>>16522094>Uh it's also metaphysical are you scared libtard??? Huh??? That word i stupidly believe just means a religion and therefore I consider just as stupid as what I already believeKill yourself faggot, you are a cloying retard child. I have never been my annoyed.
>>16525017I'm not saying it's not. Read my previous posts. What I'm saying is that the physical processes within the brain do not account for all intellectual phenomenon, which suggests that there is an aspect of the intellect is immaterial.
>>16524983>I don't understand, therefore I'm rightOh you're just a brainlet
>>16525738What was it that I didn't understand?
>>16517494Well duh OP, god was based on man's image. Same with the pantheons of the greeks and the mesopotamians. Though the christian god was "edited" to be unreachable as a concept whereas the other gods were representive of humanity. It's actually alright if christians want to believe in god, though they should know religion is a human concept.
>>16525734>I think that the physical model of the brain is incompleteno shit sherlock
>>16525791Read this again>>16523707
>>16526310Again. I don't grant that "directedness" is a real feature of reality.
>>16524983>No, actually it's up to you, to deductively prove that materialism cannot explain this (whatever directedness is supposed to be)lmfao, "prove that I can't explain... whatever this is" is a bold argument
>>16526897Because that IS his argument against materialism. That supposedly there exist something, in this case nonsense ill-defined "directedness", that materialism cannot explain. This needs to be justified.Challenging me to explain something I don't even think exist, it's not a justification. Him merely asserting that "the burden on proof is on me to do... something, doesn't make it so.
>>16517520>mental concepts are physical states of the brainAre they? That's your assumption. I'm not saying that they're not, but it's never been proven yet.
>>16526952So what? It's not like it's possible to prove anything, if it's a legit move to go like: Uhh, actually it's a magic invisible immaterial soul that does that, not the brain>assumptionC'mon, dude. There's evidence and reasons people think mental states -> ARE brain sates, is the best explanation of mental states.It's not like materialists just picks this view on random
Why exactly does absence of evidence qualify as evidence of absence in this one particular case, anyway? I thought Atheists were supposed to be intelligent and rational, yet they haven't be able to explain this to me. Probably because that would mean admitting that Atheism is a baseless assumption with no proof.
>>16517494>No evidence or nonphysical thingsDo you need evidence for your awareness? Or your subjective experiences (Qualia) ?
You know what funny? But also kinda sad.The only time 'materialists', calls themselves 'materialist'. Is when talking to spooksters who believes in ghosts and gods.
>>16526969I cash all those out as materialyou'd have to explain what it means that my awareness is nonphysical, I don't know what that is (all the things I know are physical)
>>16526967No one can stop you from believing whatever the fuck you want for no reason
I have never seen that argument being made
>>16526959>So what? It's not like it's possible to prove anythingWe can, but not from a deductive argument, but the entire conversation didn't start in deduction, so there's no reason to require it. Inductive arguments and empirical evidence is just fine.My point is that the science isn't even close to addressing this issue. While I do agree that it's likely going to end up being a part of the physical world, one way or another, we can't actually back that up with anything useful.Libet(and everyone since)'s brain scan research isn't the smoking gun to prove it. It'll be probably 100+ years, before we've even started to crack any of these problems. We don't even know how to properly talk about consciousness, so don't jump ahead to saying that materialism is the solution.For all we know, we'll have a complete revolution in our scientific understanding, beyond quantum mechanics, that trivializes all of these questions in a way that does or doesn't show that it's materialism.The correct answer is "idk", and it's going to be that way for awhile yet.None of what I'm saying is in support of "invisible magic soul" answers. It's looking at what we know, and concluding that there's no answer even being pointed at yet. Anyone saying that there's an answer being pointed to, is assuming it.
>>16526978Material = Phemenical representation of the external worldNon material = Your perceptions and their awareness.
>>16517494>No evidence of God, or nonphysical thingsEXPLAIN THE PROOF OR DONT RESPOND.IM NOT ASKING YOU, YOU ANSWER.
>>16517494All praise to the Goddesses and to the Gods of the universes.-- Mr. & Mrs. God (née Goddess) & Family
>>16520477not gonna lie, its super fun to be on a board where i can submit fedora fags with the opening argument. any of you other dorks want to give it a go feel free but the reality is there is nothing material apart from god and we do not have full access to existence so there will always be immaterial things from our perspective. as for numbers ive already rekt one nerd on this page but feel free to try again. the argument is below>>16518092
