Proof of God

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.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Ormond »

Steve3007 wrote: Most believers, as I understand it, would say that the evidence of the activities of this entity is all around us. The entity itself, unlike Spiderman, has no identifiable form.
As example, space. Space is the largest part of reality by far, encompassing all, defining all, and permeating all to the most intimate level. The very biggest thing in reality, and yet we experience space as an empty void, a nothing.
If God is the creator of the entire Universe then we have no reason to believe that any of our logic applies at all.
Here's an example of that.

Using the space example above, all we need to do is be open minded to the notion that space might somehow be intelligent, and we have found God.

But what does "intelligent" mean? The concept of intelligence was invented by a single semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. It's a useful concept for the purpose it was created, comparing humans to other humans, and humans to animals on the planet Earth. But the scope of that concept, the references which it depends on, are extremely local and immeasurably tiny in comparison to space. In fact, we currently have exactly zero evidence that the phenomena we call "intelligence" exists anywhere else in all of reality.

We assume our human concept of intelligence is automatically relevant to the subject of gods, because we aren't intelligent enough to realize that there is no proof of this at all, and that the odds are that a concept derived from so little data is unlikely to be a universal phenomena. As example, what are the odds that any entity which could create galaxies would do so by a method that would be in any way recognizable to us?
So all discussion of any kind about such an entity is meaningless.
Such a discussion is not meaningless if one is serious enough about it and pursues it with sufficient diligence to realize for oneself (not just agreeing with somebody else) that it is meaningless. Because such an insight might open the door to...
If you believe, you believe. It is just a linguistically empty feeling which cannot in any way be analyzed.
We are great philosophers :lol: and so we assume that everything important can be analyzed. What if that assumption is wrong? What if reason/logic/philosophy is a very useful process for very many things, but not therefore automatically the best method for every inquiry?

Can we reason our way to falling in love? Not really. We can reason ourselves in that direction, but at some point falling in love requires a leap in to another realm. See how obvious it is that reason has it's limits?

Are we suffering from tool bias? That is, are we willing to pursue such an inquiry only so long as it involves our favorite tool, logical analysis? If we have to choose, what's our bottom line, what's our priority? The inquiry, or the process of philosophy? I'm not suggesting there is a right or wrong answer to that, only that it would be wise for anyone to know what their answer is. If we are only willing to pursue an inquiry by a means we personally prefer, then we shouldn't be surprised if such inflexibility results in some inquiries failing.

Let's return to the space example above. Space might be defined as that which unites all things. As philosophers, we are trying to understand the ultimate unifying agent with thought, an inherently divisive electro-chemical information medium.

We are trying to grasp unity by a process of division.

Not very logical.

-- Updated June 17th, 2016, 9:16 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:Ormond! I thought you'd escaped from this place. I see you've been re-captured by the old Spiderman trick.
It's true. As an incurable typoholic addicted to the glorious sound of my own magnificent booming bloviating honking honky voice, I am your prisoner, your captive, your bitch. :lol:
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Raspberry_Yoghurt
Posts: 75
Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 10:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Levinas

Re: Proof of God

Post by Raspberry_Yoghurt »

Ormond wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:Because that is how it works. If you don't have evidence of proof of an X, then it doesn't exist by default.
No, that's not how it works.

Only 100 years ago we didn't have evidence of 99% of the universe. All those billions of galaxies were still there. They didn't "not exist by default".

The default is "we don't know". The default isn't "does not exist".
Well yes and no.

In the case of obvious human inventions like Spiderman and god, I would say the rational attitude is "do not exist by default".

I'd consider it strange if someone stated that "we don't know if Spiderman exists or nor. Maybe he will be discovered in the future."

-- Updated June 17th, 2016, 9:44 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:Raspberry_Yoghurt:
This is standard logic - the burden of proof is with the one making the statement. And it must be so, because the opposite rule is impossible.
Some standard answers:

Most believers in God don't see it as a discrete entity, like Spiderman, the evidence for the existence of which consists of pointing in one direction and saying "look, there's Spiderman" and then pointing in a different direction and saying "Spiderman is not there". Most believers, as I understand it, would say that the evidence of the activities of this entity is all around us. The entity itself, unlike Spiderman, has no identifiable form.

If God is the creator of the entire Universe then we have no reason to believe that any of our logic applies at all. So all discussion of any kind about such an entity is meaningless. If you believe, you believe. It is just a linguistically empty feeling which cannot in any way be analysed.
Stating things like "the evidence is all around us" violates how evidence works, thus must be rejected right away.

If they can define a general concept of evidence and make it work for other things than god, then you could have a debate.

But you cannot just invent a new special kind of evidence that only works for one thing, Then you have no way of knowing if this evidence is anything or just pure fabulation.

Secondarily "If God is the creator of the entire Universe then we have no reason to believe that any of our logic applies at all".

1: Why shoudn't logic apply to the creator of the universe? It seems that a lot of logic such as "God either created the universe or he didn't" applies to god perfectly well.

Just asking for a proof of god assumes that he either exists or not, and we want to prove that he exists. If he can violate logic and both exists and not exist at the same time, there is no point to the proof.

2: If god is a meaningless empty feeling, then all talk of prooving he exists must cease. You cannot proove something meaningless.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Ormond »

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:I'd consider it strange if someone stated that "we don't know if Spiderman exists or nor. Maybe he will be discovered in the future."
Far stranger things than Spiderman have already been discovered. The history of science is all we need to see this.
Why shoudn't logic apply to the creator of the universe? It seems that a lot of logic such as "God either created the universe or he didn't" applies to god perfectly well.
Does space exist, or not? Yes, or no? Something is in between the Earth and Moon, or they would be one thing. But that "something" has none of the properties we associate with existence, it has no shape, no form, no weight, no mass, is invisible etc.

If space, the largest part of reality, can be reasonably said to both exist and not exist at the same time, why do we relentlessly assume that a god must either exist or not exist? Why do we assume that our "exist or not exist" concept is a universal rule that is binding on everything everywhere, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner? What's logical about that???

You're suffering from the same malady most theists have. You desperately want to believe that all of reality is governed by some rule book which you can understand, for if that were so, you can learn the rules and thus be safe. This same process is underway on both the theist and atheist sides of the debate. It's fundamentally an emotional process, not a reasoned one, which explains why the God debate (all sides of it) can be demolished in a handful of keystrokes.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Raspberry_Yoghurt
Posts: 75
Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 10:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Levinas

Re: Proof of God

Post by Raspberry_Yoghurt »

Ormond wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:I'd consider it strange if someone stated that "we don't know if Spiderman exists or nor. Maybe he will be discovered in the future."
Far stranger things than Spiderman have already been discovered. The history of science is all we need to see this.
Why shoudn't logic apply to the creator of the universe? It seems that a lot of logic such as "God either created the universe or he didn't" applies to god perfectly well.
Does space exist, or not? Yes, or no? Something is in between the Earth and Moon, or they would be one thing. But that "something" has none of the properties we associate with existence, it has no shape, no form, no weight, no mass, is invisible etc.

If space, the largest part of reality, can be reasonably said to both exist and not exist at the same time, why do we relentlessly assume that a god must either exist or not exist? Why do we assume that our "exist or not exist" concept is a universal rule that is binding on everything everywhere, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner? What's logical about that???

You're suffering from the same malady most theists have. You desperately want to believe that all of reality is governed by some rule book which you can understand, for if that were so, you can learn the rules and thus be safe. This same process is underway on both the theist and atheist sides of the debate. It's fundamentally an emotional process, not a reasoned one, which explains why the God debate (all sides of it) can be demolished in a handful of keystrokes.
No comic characters with supernatural abilities have ever been discovered to be real.

Science indeed has come up with some surprises. But it does not support the conclusion that any sort of fictive person anybody dreams up can very well exist out there. Quite the contrary!

Space obviously exists. It is not a matter for physicists to determine what space is. I haven't read up on that, so I won't comment on that. (Having mass is no requirement for existence in physics anymore as far as I know. I don't think magnetic fields have mass for instance.)

Believing that reality is "governed" by some sort of rule book that humans can get a grasp of is a belief that is thousands year old. They used to talk expressively about the "reading the book of nature" (Galileo did I think). It is in no way some sort of recent psychological process.
Grunth
Posts: 793
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Grunth »

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:No comic characters with supernatural abilities have ever been discovered to be real.
What about comic characters without supernatural abilities, like............Ormond?
Raspberry_Yoghurt
Posts: 75
Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 10:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Levinas

Re: Proof of God

Post by Raspberry_Yoghurt »

Grunth wrote:
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:No comic characters with supernatural abilities have ever been discovered to be real.
What about comic characters without supernatural abilities, like............Ormond?
Or Donald Duck? Should we be open minded and accept the possibility that Donald Duck might very well be real, and someday science will discover a temperamental talking duck wearing sailor's clothes?
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Proof of God

Post by Felix »

No comic characters with supernatural abilities have ever been discovered to be real.
What about comic characters without supernatural abilities, like............ Ormond?
Or Donald Duck? Should we be open minded and accept the possibility that Donald Duck might very well be real, and someday science will discover a temperamental talking duck wearing sailor's clothes?
Please don't tell Daisy that Donald is fictional, she'd be very upset....
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Ormond »

Grunth wrote:What about comic characters without supernatural abilities, like............Ormond?
We are all comic book characters on these topics. Some of us realize that while others, not so much.

Yes, you're righter than you know. I even have a secret comic book character name, and a comic book tale to go with it. Had them for years. True story.

Well, if you must know, my real name is His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, and I'm the founder of Bozoism, the next great world (atheist) religion. I live with my many imaginary followers high in the mist covered mountains of North Florida at the Gullible Gals Ashram. And yes, it's true, as a great sage I do have super annoying abilities.

-- Updated June 17th, 2016, 5:46 pm to add the following --
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:Space obviously exists.


Do you not find it at least a little bit interesting that you believe with great conviction in the existence of something which no one has ever seen, and which has none of the properties we typically use to define existence?

Please observe how the entire God debate is built upon the unquestioned assumption that existence or non-existence are the only two possible answers, and you participate in that debate, while at the same time believing strongly in something which shatters that assumption. And you are not alone, for some of the greatest minds in history have done the very same thing.

The point here is that one does not need to engage and defeat any of the competing answers to the God debate. One need only demonstrate the question the God debate poses is hopelessly flawed. Meaningful answers do not arise from hopelessly flawed questions.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Grunth
Posts: 793
Joined: February 3rd, 2016, 9:48 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Grunth »

Felix wrote:
No comic characters with supernatural abilities have ever been discovered to be real.
What about comic characters without supernatural abilities, like............ Ormond?
Or Donald Duck? Should we be open minded and accept the possibility that Donald Duck might very well be real, and someday science will discover a temperamental talking duck wearing sailor's clothes?
Please don't tell Daisy that Donald is fictional, she'd be very upset....
Ah, he'll be responsible for her phantom pregnancy.

No wonder The Phantom wore a mask to hide his beak.

-- Updated June 18th, 2016, 11:38 am to add the following --
Ormond wrote:
Grunth wrote:What about comic characters without supernatural abilities, like............Ormond?
We are all comic book characters on these topics. Some of us realize that while others, not so much.

Yes, you're righter than you know. I even have a secret comic book character name, and a comic book tale to go with it. Had them for years. True story.

Well, if you must know, my real name is His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, and I'm the founder of Bozoism, the next great world (atheist) religion. I live with my many imaginary followers high in the mist covered mountains of North Florida at the Gullible Gals Ashram. And yes, it's true, as a great sage I do have super annoying abilities.
I remember your ability to levitate due to the powers as expressed by your real name. It also gave new meaning, particular during your knighthood ceremony, to the phrase uttered 'Arise Sir Flatulence'.
Raspberry_Yoghurt
Posts: 75
Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 10:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Levinas

Re: Proof of God

Post by Raspberry_Yoghurt »

Ormond wrote:
Grunth wrote:What about comic characters without supernatural abilities, like............Ormond?
We are all comic book characters on these topics. Some of us realize that while others, not so much.

Yes, you're righter than you know. I even have a secret comic book character name, and a comic book tale to go with it. Had them for years. True story.

Well, if you must know, my real name is His Flatulence Sri Baba Bozo, and I'm the founder of Bozoism, the next great world (atheist) religion. I live with my many imaginary followers high in the mist covered mountains of North Florida at the Gullible Gals Ashram. And yes, it's true, as a great sage I do have super annoying abilities.

-- Updated June 17th, 2016, 5:46 pm to add the following --
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:Space obviously exists.


Do you not find it at least a little bit interesting that you believe with great conviction in the existence of something which no one has ever seen, and which has none of the properties we typically use to define existence?

Please observe how the entire God debate is built upon the unquestioned assumption that existence or non-existence are the only two possible answers, and you participate in that debate, while at the same time believing strongly in something which shatters that assumption. And you are not alone, for some of the greatest minds in history have done the very same thing.

The point here is that one does not need to engage and defeat any of the competing answers to the God debate. One need only demonstrate the question the God debate poses is hopelessly flawed. Meaningful answers do not arise from hopelessly flawed questions.
I think the set of properties you use to define existense is just to limited. If you require mass for instance, you would then banish electromagnetic fields from existstence. This seems like a bad idea to me.

I've got no problem with neither space nor time existing even though I guess their propertyset is quite peculiar. For time even more so than space.

-- Updated June 17th, 2016, 9:40 pm to add the following --

I would also say that the respnsibility of making the basis of asking meaningful questions in the god debate lies with the people introducing the god hypothesis.

It seems to me the strategy is to make the hypothesis more and more obscure. Every time an argumentative battle is lost, the god hypothesis is recycled in a more obscure form. It's a classic way of protecting pet ideas from criticism - Karl Popper wrote at length about it. Of course, good ideas do not need to be protected from criticism by being made obscure to the point of meaningless - they can do fine on their own.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Ormond »

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:I would also say that the respnsibility of making the basis of asking meaningful questions in the god debate lies with the people introducing the god hypothesis.
Actually, such burdens lie with anyone making claims or counter claims. You appear to be stating a God does not exist. That's an unproven claim too, just like a theist claim. You too have willingly entered in to the highly suspect "exists or doesn't" paradigm underlying the debate, just like theists. You too didn't think to question that paradigm. You too took it on faith that "exists or doesn't exist" were the only options. Sorry, but um, you're a full partner in the enterprise.
It seems to me the strategy is to make the hypothesis more and more obscure. Every time an argumentative battle is lost, the god hypothesis is recycled in a more obscure form. It's a classic way of protecting pet ideas from criticism - Karl Popper wrote at length about it.
Theists arguments are never defeated because you have nothing to defeat them with, no atheists do. And the theists never win, because they have no way to prove you wrong either. That's why the debate continues for centuries, because nobody is in a position to prove any case. But, lots of people on both sides enjoy the fantasy that they are winning, so the show goes on.

Thus, the one thing that has been proven is that the God debate does have significant entertainment value. Which isn't a small thing. Life is short, fun is good, and apparently arguments which are never resolved can be fun.
Of course, good ideas do not need to be protected from criticism by being made obscure to the point of meaningless - they can do fine on their own.
Well, if you should choose to share any good ideas here, we shall put your theory to the test. :lol:
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13822
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Proof of God

Post by Belinda »

Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
Believing that reality is "governed" by some sort of rule book that humans can get a grasp of is a belief that is thousands year old. They used to talk expressively about the "reading the book of nature" (Galileo did I think). It is in no way some sort of recent psychological process.
Nature has no plan or intention but god does plan and intend. To put it another way, nature does not cause events to happen with some end in view, but god does.
Socialist
Raspberry_Yoghurt
Posts: 75
Joined: May 22nd, 2015, 10:06 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Levinas

Re: Proof of God

Post by Raspberry_Yoghurt »

Belinda wrote:Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
Believing that reality is "governed" by some sort of rule book that humans can get a grasp of is a belief that is thousands year old. They used to talk expressively about the "reading the book of nature" (Galileo did I think). It is in no way some sort of recent psychological process.
Nature has no plan or intention but god does plan and intend. To put it another way, nature does not cause events to happen with some end in view, but god does.
In modern times the people using the "the book of nature"-metaphor would mostly think it contained the "laws of nature", such as galileo's law of falling objects and such.

Some more people would for a while also think "gods" plan" was in the book, for instance the Platonic biologists from the 19th century. I think Agassiz was like.

Anyway - I am just pointing out that this is in no way a new idea, that there are laws and generalities out there that humans can discover.

If you didn't believe in THAT I think it would be the end to all science, well even in all rational trying to figure out how things work. If things don't work in certain ways, and nature was utter chaos with no rules to it, it would seem a waste of time trying to know anything.
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Proof of God

Post by Rr6 »

Ormond--As example, space. Space is the largest part of reality by far, encompassing all, defining all, and permeating all to the most intimate level. The very biggest thing in reality, and yet we experience space as an empty void, a nothing.


We live in a finite, occupied space Universe.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space is beyond/outside of that finite Philosophers.

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

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Proof of God

Post by Ormond »

Um, well, uh, you must have known I would ask....
Belinda wrote:Nature has no plan or intention but god does plan and intend. To put it another way, nature does not cause events to happen with some end in view, but god does.
How in the world could anybody possibly know such a thing?

If you examine the confidence with which you said the words quoted above (note the firmly declarative sentence containing no hint of doubt or qualification) you will perhaps see what I've been saying about the "science clergy". Much of our culture is following the "science clergy" with the same blind unquestioning belief that once defined our relationship with religious clergy.

Note the reasoning trail, which is very common.

1) Science has not discovered intention in nature, therefore...
2) There isn't intention.

That equation presumes the "science clergy" are a kind of god who could find intention if it existed.

What is so hard about saying something like....
The question of whether reality is somehow intelligent is currently unresolved.
Again, sorry to say this for the 1,000th time, but the simple fact is that science has missed the very biggest of things. So what is so logical about saying, "Science hasn't discovered X, therefore X doesn't exist"?
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
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