Evolution Vs Creation

[ChrisGB]

Moonhawk said:

ChrisGB said:

A logical demonstration of the existence of God is given, and I'm repeatedly told to give testable evidence of the non-material.

But you only assert the conclusion to the argument is non material in order to not provide evidence - not because the conclusion actually is non material. Do non material things even exist - again it is another assumption of your argument that they must.

Even if we take the prime mover argument conclusion. You state that the prime mover is unchangeable - but we know that for something to have an effect on something else (i.e. to kick off a causal chain) - the thing initiating the change must itself change. We have no precedent for something causing a change in something else - whilst itself remaining unchanged.

How do you reconcile this? How can the prime mover be simultaneously changed and unchanged. Simply invoking a magical supernatural "thing" that can mysteriously violate such rules is hardly logical.

Also if we go one further and say the prime mover is god - the bible contains many references to god changing (via his thoughts and actions). Therefore god cannot be a prime mover based on your definition of what a prime mover is.

Edited by Moonhawk on Sunday 20th April 10:34

Can you show this assertion?
The conclusion is that something actual, with no potentials, exists. To be completely or singularly actual must by definition mean unchanging, unchangeable, immaterial etc. - these are simply deductions from the logical conclusion of the argument, namely that if there is change, there is something that is just actuality. None of this is assertion, it follows from the 3 premises of the short version of the argument.
These premises are not rationally refutable:
1. We observe that some things change
2. No change brings itself about, otherwise we would have to show that something comes from absolute nothingness, which isn't going to happen.
3. An essentially ordered causal series of concurrent causes can't be infinitely regressed.
These are fleshed out in the longer versions given by Aquinas and his commentators and lead to the conclusion that there must therefore be a first changer at the origin of every series of concurrent changes that is the same and itself unchanging.

Does the non-material exist? Final causes are non material and thoughts are about something, ie. an example of final causality. How do you refute this?

How does something initiate change without itself changing?
Two of the four types of causation I am talking about are non-material, so would bring about change without directly moving matter, and if the unchanged changer is the goal or object of these causes, would not change itself. In other words, final and formal causality are how the unmoved mover moves without being moved.
See for example: http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808...


The bible gives us human experience of God, in anecdotal, poetic, didactic etc. texts. There is little cold dry philosophy. But when there is it is of God as something completely unlike us - he who is existence itself, he who is unchanging, he who has always existed, etc. There are many sorts of discourse about God, and nothing more than superficial difference.

[ChrisGB]

iwantagta said:

Chris.
What is your view on the standard question of "if god is all powerful and loving why is there suffering in the world?

If you would like any inspiration (although certainly you will not need it) there are a selection of answers on the below link:

http://carm.org/if-god-all-powerful-and-loving-why...

Some of these are really, really unpleasant. Number 9 is especially delightful - sounds like the sort of guy I wish to worship.

off the top of my head:
1. God doesn't directly create evil, it is a privation of good, so not a real substance or thing
2. God brings good out of evil (so do we)
3. God's goodness means we desire God, not just that God is morally perfect.
4. The free will argument in your link makes no sense - God doesn't step back and leave us uncaused when we think or decide, he is still first cause of our thoughts / decisions, even the bad ones.
5. Not all suffering is evil, my aching fist is from overdoing the boxing, not the result of sin.
6. Philosophy aside, there is the Fall, and the suffering of Jesus, and redemption. In other words, there is something wrong with people, therefore evil, yet God overcomes this in the end (eternal life)
7. What is the objective moral norm by which we call anything good or evil? To what extent is that norm rationally available to a non-theist?

[ChrisGB]

Nick M said:

ChrisGB said:

You know how in a rational discussion you might actually SHOW how someone is mistaken, not just keep on saying they must be?. If its impossible to show that, you should reconsider the argument. What is circular? What is built on theism?

Unless of course you have a prior commitment to an ideology like materialism and are clinging to that in spite of the evidence.

And to turn the mirror back at you...

You know how in a rational discussion you might actually SHOW some evidence to support your argument, not just keep on saying they must be? If its impossible to show that, you should reconsider the argument. What is circular? What is built on theism?

Unless of course you have a prior commitment to an ideology like theism and are clinging to that in spite of the evidence...

1. The more rational position is atheism, on the basis that there is no evidence to suggest gods, and despite all your bluster about the fact that this is a purely materialistic view, you haven't demonstrated ((2.)) any way in which the immaterial can influence the material, hence making it measurable, testable and believable...

So, if you work on the basis the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, by the same token you must allow (in a rational discussion) that the absence of evidence could equally suggest absence. And if you take things a step further and are unable to suggest any tests which could be conducted to gather evidence to support a claim then, logically, your hypothesis falls into the same category as the flying spaghetti monster.

1. No, atheism can't be more rational, because it is fundamental to that view that material evidence is essential, and there could be no such thing as material evidence that matter is all there is, so the materialist position is based on a claim its method could not possibly back up.
Atheism isn't less rational than theism though, because it isn't rational at all - if you can't accept final causality and that thoughts are about something or immaterial aspects of mind and that thoughts have intrinsic intentionality, then your thoughts are meaningless, so there is no rationality.
2. Immaterial influencing material - lots said about this - through formal and final causes. Still wont make it measurable, still a category mistake on your part.
3. If you want to call the unmoved mover sustaining every causal chain of concurrent causes now in existence a spaghetti monster rather than God, ok, but the thing is still proven and still real.

Couldn't you just refute the prime mover argument if atheism is rational and theism not? Should be a piece of cake?

Here again are its premises:
1. Some things change
2. No change brings itself about
3. No series of concurrent causes in a causal chain is infinite.

Which of these is irrational? Less rational than "atheism"? Just wrong would be a start.

[ChrisGB]

DickyC said:

In my teens I was very ill. It started with a disastrous appendix operation that was repeated after a week or so to unkink my bowel twisted during the first operation. Unknown to anyone a mess was left behind inside me. Six months later I was readmitted to hospital. "Well, we know it's not appendicitis!!" Oh, how we laughed. I was taken in on a Friday and given tests and x-rays while I became more and more ill. Specialists were called. More tests, more x-rays. Nothing. The hospital called their most senior surgeon on Sunday evening. He felt there was one chance; they should operate, find out what it was and try to fix it. My parents were called back to the hospital to give their permission. The operation started at 1am and went on for several hours. Afterwards the team were exhausted but spoke to my parents. The surgeon was even-handed in his assessment but the anaesthetist drew my father to one side and was blunt with him. Cardiac arrest. My heart had stopped for many minutes. In his view I wouldn't live until the morning and if I did I would be a vegetable. Dad didn't tell my mother and had to bear it for hours on his own.

I, meanwhile, was having a fascinating time. After I was anaesthetised, there a very long period of nothing. Then I was walking along a tunnel. It was successive rings of black and white, each ring several paces long. It was dead straight and disappeared in a dot in the far distance. I wondered if it went on for ever. I walked and walked and walked for the longest time imaginable. I wasn't scared; my feelings were perfectly neutral. And then I was at the end. No real surprise, I'd just reached the end. There were huge old, wooden doors. Double doors. Huge. Unpainted. Oak, I guessed. Iron fittings. Like the doors of a castle. One was shut and the other very slightly open, the narrow gap revealing a rich blackness inside. I pushed on the slightly open door. It was incredibly heavy. I leant against it and pushed as hard as I could. The door moved very slowly. When the gap was just big enough I slipped through and stood just inside until my eyes became accustomed to the darkness. After a little while I could make out a long, narrow table around which sat twenty old men, maybe more. They were all nodding a silent welcome. They weren't happy, they wore expressions of concern, but they were welcoming me. I knew this was very serious. Very, very, serious. I turned back towards the door and the dream ended.

I woke up in Intensive Care without a care in the world. Morphine had turned my world into amusing shades of grey where every grey thing I looked at had its own distinct buzzing sound. I parents came in briefly and I asked what the hell the were doing there so early and I saw my grandparents pop their heads round the door and I thought how hilarious they all looked in green surgical coveralls, hats and masks. Why were they in disguise? I knew who they were.

After a couple of days I went back to the ward and the surgeon came to see me. He had an entourage of trainee doctors. I learned later he was held in the highest regard. He had operated during the Blitz in London with the hospital falling down around him. He asked how I was getting on and then said, "You had a great honour bestowed on you, young man." "Oh, yes, sir? What was that?" "When we opened you up, Theatre Sister passed out. She doesn't do that very often."

The mess left behind six months earlier had turned to gangrene.

There is no God. There is no after life. We beat all the other animals in the evolutionary race. That's it. We are animals that evolved and made stories to comfort ourselves as we gained our collective consciousness and began to wonder - as no other species is capable of wondering. Some strong speakers and story tellers exploited weaknesses to give themselves power, some to create order, some to ease the burden of what until recently was, for most people, a hard life.

There is no God. The black and white tunnel was my pupils hunting. The wooden doors were my dream version of the Pearly Gates. The old men were a mix of the Last Supper and the Board of Directors in Mary Poppins. My dream was my brain making me comfortable as I faded after cardiac arrest.

When they opened me up I was st and pus and gangrene. I was an intelligent animal that was sick being treated by intelligent animals with skills.

There is no Creator.

Edited by DickyC on Sunday 20th April 12:28

I'm glad you got better!
Sorry for being pedantic, but your natural history of religion at the end is full of final causality - is that deliberate?

[leglessAlex]

And to think, just this evening DickyC and I were remarking on how this thread seemed to have died, I have never been so disappointed to be wrong.


I really, really don't see the point in continuing the argument. ChrisGB is never, ever going to change his mind and it's somewhat pointless to even try and make him do so. I find it depressing that people as delusional as him still exist in this day and age but I can at least take comfort in the fact that people fanatical as him are and always will be in a minority.

As for asking for evidence, come on guys! You all know he can't give any as there isn't any to give.

This thread is like watching someone getting beaten up by a bunch of scumbags, it's upsetting but at the same time fascinating, you can't look away.

[ChrisGB]

IainT said:

ChrisGB said:

Category mistake - logic must look like science.

1. Logic is a fundamental part of the scientific process. You cannot draw illogical inferences and call it good science. Science looks like logic looks like science.

Are you disagreeing with that or is your point just shockingly vaguely worded? You're also missing the point quite drastically - ((2)) Aristotle based his thinking on the axioms he held to be true at the time. Much of which is fundamentally wrong.

ChrisGB said:

Assume Matt's version of Aristotle - his prime mover is like basic laws of universe, except they are entities. Ok. They are potentials or unformed matter, take your pick. So you have proved something with potentials. This needs an actualiser still. So hardly what the argument demonstrates, even in Aristotle's terms.

3. You might as well say "assuming things are as we're going to argue they are... thus our argument proves they are so."

The assumption that the basic laws (which can be demonstrated to be so) are entities is just that. An assumption with no factual basis. The only 4. 'actualiser' (and, my god, you like your magical terminology and woo - must be a church thing) that is required are the 5. fundamental laws that the universe operates under.

ChrisGB said:

When Aquinas deduces attributes of what has been proved, this is logical development of argument, prompted by his theology which differed from Aristotle's, yes, but nevertheless a logical demonstration.
What is understandably hard for you to swallow is that there is a purely logical demonstration of God's existence. This isn't some fringe view, it is a dogma of the church. Happy Easter!

6. Actually it's the dogma of one pretty arbitrary branch of Christianity and holds no authority by dint of being dogma of that rapidly shrinking cult.

ChrisGB said:

And what about Aristotle's science - outdated, but irrelevant. The only premises that science could comment on are that some things change, and that no change brings itself about. What does science say about these? For the second you would have to demonstrate that something comes from absolute nothingness, and this is not going to happen.

7. 'Absolute nothingness' cannot exist. It cannot exist for either reality or your twisted view of the world to hold true.

ChrisGB said:

So where is that refutation?

Have you actually read many of the responses to your posts rather than just spend time trying to come up with pseudo-8. intellectual put-downs and condescension?

1. It looks like you set out to disagree, find that you've agreed, so invent a conclusion nothing you have said leads to. That science needs logic says nothing about your category mistake.
2. Show me how a proof of God relies on a falsified axiom, whether Aristotle's or anyone else's. please show! This is just bluster!!!
3. No, not at all, that was just to show that there's a very good reason Aristotle abandons his astrology when he gets serious about ONE prime mover only.
4. Actualiser is philosophical terminology, nothing to do with theism.
5. So what exactly is a fundamental law if nature? Unpack that and we'll see how it does as an unmoved mover....
6. It matters that this is the mainstream Christian position for hundreds of years and atheists have no answer to it. If atheism is to be a rational superstition, it needs at least to refute proofs of God, you'd have thought...
7. Great! Premise 2 seems secure.
8. No mockery in your post? Plenty I can see. Double standards to complain about mine then?
If I have missed a refutation of prime mover, please point it out. I don't need to mock here, you've just told me above one of the 3 premises is correct.

[ChrisGB]

Captain Muppet said:

ChrisGB said:

Captain Muppet said:

ChrisGB said:

rxtx said:

Didn't think so. It's not your fault you were indoctrinated Chris.

(Why do I feel like Robin Williams?)

On this basis, every atheist would have studied in depth the arguments for and against God, so would have a ready refutation of prime mover, final causality, immateriality of mind? Those exact things conspicuous by their absence in this thread and anywhere else.
Sounds like double standards to me.

You make a very valid point. Athiest also beleive based on a total lack of evidence. The only logical standpoint is to admit that there may or may not be a god, given that it is possible to imagine a god that can exist while leaving no evidence that exclusively proves it exists.

The problem comes from either side beleiving they are right and thinking the other side is wrong.

I've written a new version of the Lord's prayer to end this silly misunderstanding, obviously something similar will have to be rolled out to the rest of the religions:

Dear God, if you exist, you're ace.
Nice trick with the creation and lack of proof.
Given that we don't know the rules we made some up and hope we got them right.
But lets face it, you'd have to be pretty cruel and arbitrary to judge us either way.
Thanks for all the cancer,
Amen.

If you call evidence only what is empirical, you are assuming what you can't prove.
If you allow logic as a way of knowing, if rational argument can give you the truth, then God can be proven to exist.
You don't need to allow logic or reason.

Sorry I was busy all weekend so I missed this.

Sorry, yes I was using "evidence" as just measurable stuff, data, things. I accept that it does limit my sources of knowledge.

Assuming that what you say is true, and that you can use logic to prove God exists, what use is that knowledge?

How does knowing there is a God change anything at all?

Where does the moral guidance come from?

Given that I'll have to invest quite a bit of time and effort to accept your argument that there is a god it'd be nice to know why I should bother.

Assume God makes no difference but exists. At the very least atheism isn't true. If it's fine that in a fundamental question you have the wrong answer, then there seems little point discussing.

There's no need to believe in God to know that the ideologies attached to atheism are also irrational and meaningless, and so the wrongness of them should be at least as, and more obviously, pressing a reason for abandoning them than the truth of theism.

[ChrisGB]

Justaredbadge said:

ChrisGB said:

Can you be specific?

Only as much as you can.


That is to say he'll probably avoid the question totally and post an essay at a different tangent to the topic in hand.

Sound familiar?

He repeatedly says these premises are just assertions, and the conclusion that follows from them is too:
1. Some things change
2. No change changes itself
3. No series of concurrent changers is infinite

Which of these is assertion? Which is false?
The claims are repeated over and over, that these are just assertions, but each one has been unpacked at length and can be again.

But thanks for being so even-handed in your wading in.

[ChrisGB]

leglessAlex said:

And to think, just this evening DickyC and I were remarking on how this thread seemed to have died, I have never been so disappointed to be wrong.


I really, really don't see the point in continuing the argument. ChrisGB is never, ever going to change his mind and it's somewhat pointless to even try and make him do so. I find it depressing that people as delusional as him still exist in this day and age but I can at least take comfort in the fact that people fanatical as him are and always will be in a minority.

As for asking for evidence, come on guys! You all know he can't give any as there isn't any to give.

This thread is like watching someone getting beaten up by a bunch of scumbags, it's upsetting but at the same time fascinating, you can't look away.

As NickM or rxtx would say - is there anything at all here that a theist wouldn't say about an atheist too?

If rational discussion can't be a sort of proof for atheists, you are just confirming the irrationality of atheism. Cheers!

[Justaredbadge]

ChrisGB said:

Justaredbadge said:

ChrisGB said:

Can you be specific?

Only as much as you can.


That is to say he'll probably avoid the question totally and post an essay at a different tangent to the topic in hand.

Sound familiar?

He repeatedly says these premises are just assertions, and the conclusion that follows from them is too:
1. Some things change
2. No change changes itself
3. No series of concurrent changers is infinite

Which of these is assertion? Which is false?
The claims are repeated over and over, that these are just assertions, but each one has been unpacked at length and can be again.

But thanks for being so even-handed in your wading in.

So I was right.

I wonder how I guessed that would happen. Maybe it was a true miracle, or maybe an act of God.

Or maybe you just don't have a real argument, so you change the subject any time anyone questions any of the stuff you've typed.

[leglessAlex]

ChrisGB said:

leglessAlex said:

And to think, just this evening DickyC and I were remarking on how this thread seemed to have died, I have never been so disappointed to be wrong.


I really, really don't see the point in continuing the argument. ChrisGB is never, ever going to change his mind and it's somewhat pointless to even try and make him do so. I find it depressing that people as delusional as him still exist in this day and age but I can at least take comfort in the fact that people fanatical as him are and always will be in a minority.

As for asking for evidence, come on guys! You all know he can't give any as there isn't any to give.

This thread is like watching someone getting beaten up by a bunch of scumbags, it's upsetting but at the same time fascinating, you can't look away.

As NickM or rxtx would say - is there anything at all here that a theist wouldn't say about an atheist too?

If rational discussion can't be a sort of proof for atheists, you are just confirming the irrationality of atheism. Cheers!

Rational discussion cannot be proof, as discussion does not count as evidence and without evidence there can be no proof no matter how rational it is.

Do you honestly, truly believe that atheism is irrational? Staggering.

[DickyC]

Ahm oot.

[Engineer1]

ChrisGB said:

1. We observe that some things change
2. No change brings itself about, otherwise we would have to show that something comes from absolute nothingness, which isn't going to happen.
3. An essentially ordered causal series of concurrent causes can't be infinitely regressed.
These are fleshed out in the longer versions given by Aquinas and his commentators and lead to the conclusion that there must therefore be a first changer at the origin of every series of concurrent changes that is the same and itself unchanging.
Snip...

The bible gives us human experience of God, in anecdotal, poetic, didactic etc. texts. There is little cold dry philosophy. But when there is it is of God as something completely unlike us - he who is existence itself, he who is unchanging, he who has always existed, etc. There are many sorts of discourse about God, and nothing more than superficial difference.

I keep pointing out 1-3 are all logical but are we certain they hold for something that we only know of happening once? Science can't run the universe back that far

[WinstonWolf]

ChrisGB said:

leglessAlex said:

And to think, just this evening DickyC and I were remarking on how this thread seemed to have died, I have never been so disappointed to be wrong.


I really, really don't see the point in continuing the argument. ChrisGB is never, ever going to change his mind and it's somewhat pointless to even try and make him do so. I find it depressing that people as delusional as him still exist in this day and age but I can at least take comfort in the fact that people fanatical as him are and always will be in a minority.

As for asking for evidence, come on guys! You all know he can't give any as there isn't any to give.

This thread is like watching someone getting beaten up by a bunch of scumbags, it's upsetting but at the same time fascinating, you can't look away.

As NickM or rxtx would say - is there anything at all here that a theist wouldn't say about an atheist too?

If rational discussion can't be a sort of proof for atheists, you are just confirming the irrationality of atheism. Cheers!

Hey Chris, why are you ignoring me?

I've been dead and there was no god. I have proof you are wrong and it's much more convincing than any book.

If there is a god why is he such an asshole?

[xRIEx]

ChrisGB said:

He repeatedly says these premises are just assertions, and the conclusion that follows from them is too:
1. Some things change
2. No change changes itself
3. No series of concurrent changers is infinite

Which of these is assertion? Which is false?

Numbers 2 and 3.

[98elise]

ChrisGB said:

As NickM or rxtx would say - is there anything at all here that a theist wouldn't say about an atheist too?

If rational discussion can't be a sort of proof for atheists, you are just confirming the irrationality of atheism. Cheers!

Rational discussion is hypothesis. Religion will ignore scientific proof if doesn't follow the hypothesis. At that point it ceases to be hypotheses and becomes just belief. That is irational.

Atheists believe in whats proven. If god is at any point proven, then I will happly change my view that god exists. That is rational.

Could I ask if you believe in all gods, or just the one of your chosen religion? Are other religions even counted as religion by yours? The RC church doesn't recognise the Anglican Church for example. If you don't believe in the others, then is that not irrational by your definition?

[Moonhawk]

ChrisGB said:

Can you show this assertion?
The conclusion is that something actual, with no potentials, exists. To be completely or singularly actual must by definition mean unchanging, unchangeable, immaterial etc. - these are simply deductions from the logical conclusion of the argument, namely that if there is change, there is something that is just actuality. None of this is assertion, it follows from the 3 premises of the short version of the argument.

Only if you assume points 2 and 3 of your argument hold. What if things can change themselves (or can change spontaneously)? What if a causal series can be infinite? What if time itself does not hold, or is not linear under all circumstances (surely infinite regression of a causal series is only meaningful within the context of linear time).

ChrisGB said:

These premises are not rationally refutable:
1. We observe that some things change
2. No change brings itself about, otherwise we would have to show that something comes from absolute nothingness, which isn't going to happen.
3. An essentially ordered causal series of concurrent causes can't be infinitely regressed.
These are fleshed out in the longer versions given by Aquinas and his commentators and lead to the conclusion that there must therefore be a first changer at the origin of every series of concurrent changes that is the same and itself unchanging.

Again - points 2 and 3 whilst they may sound reasonable - are still assumptions (and are based on more assumptions). They have not been demonstrated to be true under all conditions.

Even if we take them to be true - they throw up more questions/assumptions.

Like:

4. Nothing can induce a change in something else without itself having been changed.

This has masses of observable evidence to back it up - and yet to accept your prime mover argument - we have to essentially reject all of this evidence and make the assertion that "something must exist which does not conform to this rule".

ChrisGB said:

Does the non-material exist? Final causes are non material and thoughts are about something, ie. an example of final causality. How do you refute this?

Can you define what you mean by "final cause" and perhaps give an example. The examples of final causes I have found are very much material in nature (i.e. "health is the end of walking").

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causal...

As for thoughts - they can be very much shown to be material. Their presence and the changes they induce in the brain can be measured using instruments like MRI scanners.

ChrisGB said:

How does something initiate change without itself changing?
Two of the four types of causation I am talking about are non-material, so would bring about change without directly moving matter, and if the unchanged changer is the goal or object of these causes, would not change itself. In other words, final and formal causality are how the unmoved mover moves without being moved.
See for example: http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808...

You dont have to move matter for something to be considered "material". Anything that has an observable effect on matter or the universe (and can therefore be measured/observed) would also fall within this remit IMO. Energy, fundamental forces etc would all fall under the "material" remit.

ChrisGB said:

The bible gives us human experience of God, in anecdotal, poetic, didactic etc. texts. There is little cold dry philosophy. But when there is it is of God as something completely unlike us - he who is existence itself, he who is unchanging, he who has always existed, etc. There are many sorts of discourse about God, and nothing more than superficial difference.

I'm sure the proponents of each religion feels very much the same about their sacred texts.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 24th April 12:33

[Moonhawk]

98elise said:

Could I ask if you believe in all gods, or just the one of your chosen religion? Are other religions even counted as religion by yours? The RC church doesn't recognise the Anglican Church for example. If you don't believe in the others, then is that not irrational by your definition?

Chris has already made the point that the argument he is using not only proves the "prime mover" exists - but that the prime mover can be demonstrated to be the god of Christianity and Judaism (but interestingly - cannot be used to get to Islam - which is odd since it's the same god - i.e. one based on the Abrahamic texts).

http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Even if we accept that the arguments for a prime mover existing are valid.........there is absolutely no evidence or argument that can be used to show categorically it is a god (i.e. a thinking, feeling, omnipotent, all powerful entity)....let alone something as specific as the god of Christianity.

Even if we demonstrate or accept that god exists - it doesn't necessarily follow that god is the prime mover either. Whatever 'god' exists may simply be one more link in the causal chain.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 24th April 12:43

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ChrisGB,

When you say "some things change", that implies that other things don't change. Can you give me an example of something that doesn't change?

[Pixel Pusher]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Can you give me an example of something that doesn't change?

The monotony of this thread?



Am I doing this right?