The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Pachomius
Posts: 176
Joined: January 4th, 2008, 5:29 pm

The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Pachomius »

I hope no one is offended with the title of the thread.

The way I see it, there is endless discussion on God existing or not, but nothing of any discussion on how to concur on the way to prove or disprove God exists.

That is why I am always trying to get people to first work together to concur on what it is to prove or disprove that something exists in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind.

And forgive me, I always get banned eventually for trying to get folks to return to my invitation of working together to concur on what it is to prove or disprove that something exists in objective reality outside our mind.

What do you say, can we concur on what it is to prove or disprove God exists, or anything at all that exists outside of concepts in our mind?

Hope I stay longer here than in other forums which are heavily and very massively active in philosophy.
User avatar
Alec Smart
Posts: 671
Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Alec Smart »

Pachomius wrote:
The way I see it, there is endless discussion on God existing or not,
Yes and it's about time someone put a stop to it.
Smart by name and Alec by nature.
User avatar
Leon
Posts: 87
Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Leon »

David Hume had thoughts on composed ideas. F.i. a lizard and a bird together gives the idea of a dragon. The lizard exists, the bird exists, the dragon exists as an idea, because it is composed. (There may have been dragonlike creatures, but none fire-breathing)

Reichenbach shows that some ideas are just not possible in the physical world: F.i. a solid bridge to the moon. The idea is clear, you can debate the idea, even make plans to build the bridge, but it is just not possible to build in the physical world.
On the level of "physically possible" many ideas have no (possible) existence.

You should always be aware what is not possible now, might become possible in the future. Some ideas are however clearly composed and have not had any real existence, or would rule out because they are physically impossible.

The "God-idea" as a sentient being with ultimate powers, can be understood as composed, or physically impossible to exist. A slight chance exists that what we consider "ultimate power" will in the future be available, and that an existing being from the future could have these powers, and one of these powers should be to create the past with all our history and us.

This is pure science fiction, and like all science fiction this expectation of the future is composed out of available ideas (i.e. our technologically advanced people would seem godlike to primitive people). But induction is not always possible. It might just be physically impossible to create the past, which would rule out the possibility of the God ever coming into existence, if it was only a composed idea, and physically impossible idea now.
Jklint
Posts: 1719
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Jklint »

You can get half of the world's population to concur on any +/- aspect of god's existence and the only "proof" in effect is consensus only. The subject remains forever impervious to proof if only on a formality basis but not to probability or credibility which is almost non-existent. The quintessential response is who cares since we in any event owe it NOTHING!
User avatar
Leon
Posts: 87
Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Leon »

Leon wrote:David Hume had thoughts on composed ideas. F.i. a lizard and a bird together gives the idea of a dragon. The lizard exists, the bird exists, the dragon exists as an idea, because it is composed. (There may have been dragonlike creatures, but none fire-breathing)
The correct expression would have been: "combined ideas".
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Steve3007 »

Pachomius:
And forgive me, I always get banned eventually for trying to get folks to return to my invitation of working together to concur on what it is to prove or disprove that something exists in objective reality outside our mind.
At first I was surprised that you'd be banned for such a seemingly innocuous aim. But then I noticed you used exactly the same phrase three times in your OP. Maybe people just get annoyed by the linguistic repetition? I think a lot of us do the same thing. We have a particular "hobby horse" that we obsess about. Try mixing it up a bit. Consult a Thesaurus, maybe.

Anyway, if we treat it as a general question about what it means for something to "exist" and how we decide whether we believe that any given concept or object exists, then it's a good question.

Initially I'd personally avoid the word "prove" and not make the question specific to the God concept. Rightly or not, "proof" generally seems to be used to mean a demonstration that something is true, with certainty. We can't know anything is true with certainty except perhaps our own instantaneous existence and things that are true by definition (mathematics; tautologies).

So, how about this question: "On what basis do we decide that we believe something exists?". With normal, everyday things it seems clear to me that it is by correlations, or patterns, in various different senses. Both our own different senses and the senses of other people. We've discovered that a very effective way to make sense of all these sensations that flood in through our eyes and ears is to assume that they are "caused" by various "things" that exist objectively in a thing we like to call the real world. The more successful that real world model is at making sense of all these sensations, the more attached we are to it. So, if I see a dagger in front of me and I try to clutch it but my hand goes straight through it, that dagger has broken the rules of sensory correlation. So I deem it not to exist. I probably conclude that it is a false creation proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain, or some such thing.

That'll do for now.
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Present awareness »

All of our experiences are experienced inside the brain. As Steve says, we assume that the light, sound, smell, taste and touch sensations that we experience, originate outside of us, so there must be something "out there" which exists, to cause them. However, we would need to be able to step "outside" of our brain, in order to prove it.

Prior to my conception, I did not have a brain for some 13.7 billion years from the Big Bang and so nothing existed for me personally. Now that I'm here, it seems like the universe exists, but once I'm gone, there will be no way of knowing that I once existed or that the universe existed (from my point of view as a dead person). Things will be like they were before: I didn't miss not being here for 13.7 billion years and I won't miss being here for the next 13.7 billion years.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
User avatar
Alec Smart
Posts: 671
Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Alec Smart »

Present awareness wrote:I didn't miss not being here for 13.7 billion
I often get quite nostalgic for the time before I existed.
Smart by name and Alec by nature.
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Present awareness »

Alec Smart wrote:
Present awareness wrote:I didn't miss not being here for 13.7 billion
I often get quite nostalgic for the time before I existed.
Don't worry Alec, it will be back like it was, before you know it!
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Rr6 »

...."Since 1927, whenever i am going to sleep, i always concentrate my thinking on what i call "Ever Rethinking the Lords Prayer" (Richard Buckminister Fuller)

....I am confident as specifically argued, my following declaration constitutes a scientifically
meticulous, direct-experience-based proof of God.

....."Ever Rethinking the Lord's Prayer
..............July 12 1979

To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.

I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences.

In using the word, God,
I am consciously employing
four clearly differentiated
from one another
experience-engendered thoughts.

Firstly I mean:_
those experience-engendered thoughts
which are predicated upon past successions
which are unexpected, human discoveries
of mathematically incisive,
physically demonstrable answers
to what thereto fore had been missassumed
to be forever unanswerable
cosmic magnitude questions
wherefore I now assume it to be
scientifically manifest,
and therefore experientially reasonable that

scientifically explainable answers
may and probably will
eventually be given
to all questions
as engendered in all human thoughts
by the sum total
of all human experiences;
wherefore my first meaning for God is:-

all the experientially explained
or explainable answers
to all questions
of all time-

Secondly I mean;-
The individual's memory
of many surprising moments
of dawning comprehension's
of as interrelated significance
to be existent
amongst a number
of what had previously seemed to be
entirely uninterrelated experiences
all of which remembered experiences
engender the reasonable assumption
of the possible existence
of a total comprehension
of the integrated significance-
the meaning-
of all experiences.

Thirdly, I mean:-
the only intellectually discoverable
a priori, intellectual integrity
indisputably manifest as
the only mathematically stateable
family
of generalized principles-
cosmic laws-
thus far discovered and codified
and ever physically redemonstrable
by scientists
to be not only unfailingly operative
but to be in eternal,
omni-interconsiderate,
omni-interaccommodative governance
of the complex
of everyday, naked-eye experiences
as well as of the multi-millions-fold greater range
of only instrumentally explored
infra- and ultra-tuneable
micro- and macro-Universe events.

Fourthly, I mean;-
All the mystery inherent
in all human experience,
which, as a lifetime ratioed to eternity,
is individually limited
to almost negligible
twixt sleepings, glimpses
of only a few local episodes
of one of the infinite myriads
of concurrently and overlappingly operative
sum-totally never -ending
cosmic scenario serials.

With these four meanings I now directly
address God.
"Our God-
Since omni-experience is your identity
You have given us
overwhelming manifest:-
of Your complete knowledge
of Your complete comprehrension
of Your complete concern
of Your complete coordination
of Your complete responsibility
of Your complete capability to cope
in absolute wisdom and effectiveness
with all problems and events
and of Your eternally unfailing reliability
so to do

Yours , dear God,
is the only and complete glory.

By glory I mean the synergetic totality
of all physical and metaphysical radiation
and of all physical and metaphysical gravity
of finite
but non-unitarily conceptual
scenario Universe
in whose synergetic totality
the a priori energy potentials
of both radiation and gravity
are initially equal
but whose respective
behavioral patterns are such
that radiation's entropic redundant disintegratings
is always less effective
than gravity's non redundant
syntropic integrating

Radiation is plural and differentiable,
radiation is focusable, beamable, and self-sinusing,
is interceptible, separatist, and biasble-
ergo, has shadowed voids and vulnerabilities;

Gravity is unit and undifferentiable
Gravity is comprehensive
inclusively embracing and permeative
is non-focusable and shadowless,
and is omni-integrative;
all of which characteristics gravity
are also the characteristics of love.
Love is metaphysical gravity.
(eome- note; Bucky has also described love as the synergetic interplay between these
two opposite forces.)

You, Dear God,
are the totally loving intellect
ever designing
and ever daring to test
and thereby irrefutably proving
to the uncompromising satisfaction
of Your own comprehensive and incisive
knowledge of the absolute truth
that Your generalized principles
adequately accommodate any and all
special case developments,
involvement's, and side effects;
wherefore Your absolutely courageous
omni-rigorous and ruthless self-testing
alone can and does absolutely guarantee
total conservation
of the integrity
of eternally regenerative Universe

You eternally regenerative scenario Universe
is the minimum complex
of totally inter-complementary
totally inter-transforming
non-simultaneous, differently frequenced
and differently enduring
feedback closures
of a finite
but non-unitarily conceptual system
in which naught is created
and naught is lost
and all occurs
in optimum efficiency.

Total accountability and total feedback
constitute the minimum and only
perpetual motion system.
Universe is the one and only
eternally regenerative system.

To accomplish Your regenerative integrity
You give Yourself the responsibility
of eternal, absolutely continuous,
tirelessly vigilant wisdom.

Wherefore we have absolute faith and trust in You,
and we worship You
awe-inspiredly,
all-thankfully,
rejoicingly,
lovingly,
Amen."........
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Raspberry_Yoghurt
Posts: 75
Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 10:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Levinas

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Raspberry_Yoghurt »

Rr6 wrote:...."Since 1927, whenever i am going to sleep, i always concentrate my thinking on what i call "Ever Rethinking the Lords Prayer" (Richard Buckminister Fuller)

....I am confident as specifically argued, my following declaration constitutes a scientifically
meticulous, direct-experience-based proof of God.

....."Ever Rethinking the Lord's Prayer
..............July 12 1979

To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.

I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences.

In using the word, God,
I am consciously employing
four clearly differentiated
from one another
experience-engendered thoughts.

Firstly I mean:_
those experience-engendered thoughts
which are predicated upon past successions
which are unexpected, human discoveries
of mathematically incisive,
physically demonstrable answers
to what thereto fore had been missassumed
to be forever unanswerable
cosmic magnitude questions
wherefore I now assume it to be
scientifically manifest,
and therefore experientially reasonable that

scientifically explainable answers
may and probably will
eventually be given
to all questions
as engendered in all human thoughts
by the sum total
of all human experiences;
wherefore my first meaning for God is:-

all the experientially explained
or explainable answers
to all questions
of all time-

Secondly I mean;-
The individual's memory
of many surprising moments
of dawning comprehension's
of as interrelated significance
to be existent
amongst a number
of what had previously seemed to be
entirely uninterrelated experiences
all of which remembered experiences
engender the reasonable assumption
of the possible existence
of a total comprehension
of the integrated significance-
the meaning-
of all experiences.

Thirdly, I mean:-
the only intellectually discoverable
a priori, intellectual integrity
indisputably manifest as
the only mathematically stateable
family
of generalized principles-
cosmic laws-
thus far discovered and codified
and ever physically redemonstrable
by scientists
to be not only unfailingly operative
but to be in eternal,
omni-interconsiderate,
omni-interaccommodative governance
of the complex
of everyday, naked-eye experiences
as well as of the multi-millions-fold greater range
of only instrumentally explored
infra- and ultra-tuneable
micro- and macro-Universe events.

Fourthly, I mean;-
All the mystery inherent
in all human experience,
which, as a lifetime ratioed to eternity,
is individually limited
to almost negligible
twixt sleepings, glimpses
of only a few local episodes
of one of the infinite myriads
of concurrently and overlappingly operative
sum-totally never -ending
cosmic scenario serials.

With these four meanings I now directly
address God.
"Our God-
Since omni-experience is your identity
You have given us
overwhelming manifest:-
of Your complete knowledge
of Your complete comprehrension
of Your complete concern
of Your complete coordination
of Your complete responsibility
of Your complete capability to cope
in absolute wisdom and effectiveness
with all problems and events
and of Your eternally unfailing reliability
so to do

Yours , dear God,
is the only and complete glory.

By glory I mean the synergetic totality
of all physical and metaphysical radiation
and of all physical and metaphysical gravity
of finite
but non-unitarily conceptual
scenario Universe
in whose synergetic totality
the a priori energy potentials
of both radiation and gravity
are initially equal
but whose respective
behavioral patterns are such
that radiation's entropic redundant disintegratings
is always less effective
than gravity's non redundant
syntropic integrating

Radiation is plural and differentiable,
radiation is focusable, beamable, and self-sinusing,
is interceptible, separatist, and biasble-
ergo, has shadowed voids and vulnerabilities;

Gravity is unit and undifferentiable
Gravity is comprehensive
inclusively embracing and permeative
is non-focusable and shadowless,
and is omni-integrative;
all of which characteristics gravity
are also the characteristics of love.
Love is metaphysical gravity.
(eome- note; Bucky has also described love as the synergetic interplay between these
two opposite forces.)

You, Dear God,
are the totally loving intellect
ever designing
and ever daring to test
and thereby irrefutably proving
to the uncompromising satisfaction
of Your own comprehensive and incisive
knowledge of the absolute truth
that Your generalized principles
adequately accommodate any and all
special case developments,
involvement's, and side effects;
wherefore Your absolutely courageous
omni-rigorous and ruthless self-testing
alone can and does absolutely guarantee
total conservation
of the integrity
of eternally regenerative Universe

You eternally regenerative scenario Universe
is the minimum complex
of totally inter-complementary
totally inter-transforming
non-simultaneous, differently frequenced
and differently enduring
feedback closures
of a finite
but non-unitarily conceptual system
in which naught is created
and naught is lost
and all occurs
in optimum efficiency.

Total accountability and total feedback
constitute the minimum and only
perpetual motion system.
Universe is the one and only
eternally regenerative system.

To accomplish Your regenerative integrity
You give Yourself the responsibility
of eternal, absolutely continuous,
tirelessly vigilant wisdom.

Wherefore we have absolute faith and trust in You,
and we worship You
awe-inspiredly,
all-thankfully,
rejoicingly,
lovingly,
Amen."........
I don't see what is supposed to be a proof in this? Could you elaborate on which part is supposed to be a proof?

As far as I can see, he is just defining some terms. And then he just jumps to talking about god with no argument or proof.
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Rr6 »

R B FULLEr--
.."To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.

I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences."...
I don't see what is supposed to be a proof in this? Could you elaborate on which part is supposed to be a proof?
As far as I can see, he is just defining some terms. And then he just jumps to talking about god with no argument or proof.
Asking the source is always best. His own words is the closest we can come to asking him.

..."To be satisfactory to science
all definitions must be stated
in terms of experience.

I define Universe as
all of humanity's
in-all-known-time
consciously apprehended
and communicated (to self or others)
experiences."...

See my cosmic hierarchy ergo cosmic trinity and that may help you.

Our finite occupied space Uni-Verse exists. If you need proof of such then I refer you to those many scientists who have their common sense and instrumental verification of their common sense experiences.

However, there exists people who do not believe space, occupied or not even exists ex Atreyu has made such comments.

It is nonsense of course. Then there others, including Belinda who insinuates she cannot understand a word I state ex;

"U"niverse = "G"od is beyond here ability to comprehend/grasp/understand/grock

Universe/Uni-Verse = God is beyond her ability to comprehend/grasp/understand/grock.

metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept is beyond her and some others to comprehend/understand/grasp/grock.

macro-infinite, non-occupied space is beyond her and some others to comprehend/grasp.

finite, occupied space Universe etc.....""................""................."'

There are some who have ego based mental blockage to anything r6 has to say. Go figure.

The truth is out there for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it.

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Raspberry_Yoghurt
Posts: 75
Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 10:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Levinas

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Raspberry_Yoghurt »

Well if you see a proof in the text you posted, you could also just say what the proof is?
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Rr6 »

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:Well if you see a proof in the text you posted, you could also just say what the proof is?
I see all of the proof I need, If you don't, you have the option to move along to that which interests you more.

Occupied space >< non-occupied space

Physical/energy >< metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept

Gravity ( ) >< dark energy )(

Biological/soul >< mineral, atom, fermion, boson

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Leon
Posts: 87
Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus

Re: The need to concur on how to prove God exists or not.

Post by Leon »

A convincing experience is proof enough. Is there anything beyond experience?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021