tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4167311007096431032..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: A new brief form of the argument from reason Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3664599787379512132014-05-08T20:22:56.784-07:002014-05-08T20:22:56.784-07:00B. Prokop said...
"We discussed this very iss...B. Prokop said...<br />"<i>We discussed this very issue (of whether or not the universe can be infinitely old) way back in 2009, <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/11/to-preface-this-bob-prokop-sometime.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>. If I remember correctly, this was only the first of several such conversations/debates on the subject.</i>"<br />Thanks for sharing this. I was about to reply but instead ended up reading this thread and other pages it links to for around an hour; hence I have almost no time left to reply... This link was particularly interesting:<br /><a href="http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/04/unchanging-time-and-infinite-past.html" rel="nofollow"><br />Unchanging Time and the Infinite Past</a><br />Perhaps more later...<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34328515317846623592014-05-08T20:22:41.601-07:002014-05-08T20:22:41.601-07:00grodrigues said...
"The first time the author...grodrigues said...<br />"<i>The first time the author even uses the word mind is almost at the end of the article, so where are you getting this from?</i>"<br />Because 'using reason' is something human minds do and after reading the article it's obvious that the author accepts the notion that minds can exist, and do exist, without a natural/physical/material body. This answers your question at the end of the comment: "<i>Have you really read the article or just skimmed it</i>".<br />Yes I did and wrote what my impression is, instead of a line-by-line dissection; not that my opinion matters but we are all people talking to each other, not writing essays...<br /><br />Regarding the line from you that I just quoted; it does not say anything about why I would be wrong. You just don't get where it came from...<br /><br />"<i>This is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the argument. The arguments are *not* presented "using that framework", by which I presume you mean substance dualism. And while we are at it, another hint: not all theists are substance dualists, e.g.: I am not. And although admittedly I am a nobody, since what I believe is in the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas... </i>"<br /><br />I am not sure if the label 'substance dualism' is accurate as I tend to forget the subtle differences between these positions. What I am referring to is probably broader; I am talking about the idea that theistic arguments always imply that minds are somehow not purely natural things. But again, I am not sure what you think I got wrong since you did not say anything about it; you just say that I misunderstood something while I am almost certain that the author does believe what I just said.<br /><br />As a side question, going back to the label 'substance dualism', I would like to know what would better describe your position?<br /><br />"<i>The argument does revolve around the nature of reason and on what reasoning consists of essentially, but it does not make the silly detour of "ascribed to minds, defined as non-natural, reason cannot possible be proven to be natural" that you impugn it. </i>"<br /><br />Again, you just say 'you're wrong' but do not offer any explanation. The author implicitly ascribe reason to non-natural minds as soon as starts the argument, under the section 'Distinguishing Reason from Natural Processes'. He makes a distinction between breathing/digestion and thinking, as if one was more mysterious than the others in terms of origin; when in reality they are all products of natural things and are thus purely natural. This is made more evident by the quick comment saying 'We will here waive quibbles over treating beliefs as physical'. There is no quibble; beliefs are physical in the sense that physical humans hold them. Beliefs are not physical in the everyday usage of the word, since we cannot touch/smell/hear them, but they are nothing but products of physical brains. There is no problem with 'confirming reason as a natural process' as reason is nothing but a mind thinking about its existing beliefs and trying to figure out how they can yield more beliefs or correct existing ones.<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51902959936207420792014-05-08T15:28:36.175-07:002014-05-08T15:28:36.175-07:00@Ilíon:
"You sometimes join in the "let...@Ilíon:<br /><br />"You sometimes join in the "let's all condemn Ilíon for his rudeness at calling out intellectual dishonesty (as a matter of principle) instead of alleging it when we're pissed, as we do" group hugs-and-bonding-moments."<br /><br />Actually, I never once joined in either a collective condemnation of your rudeness or even single-handedly condemned your rudeness. Not once. I will admit that my memory is not flawless so if you have a specimen of such a condemnation, I would appreciate you showed it to me so that I can amend my ways.<br /><br />There is one thing that puzzles me though: why exactly is my opinion important? You are a sect of one man, so what does it matter? You feel all alone in the trenches, fighting an unfair battle with the savage barbarians and no one protecting your back, is it? Lost that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEkB-VQviLI" rel="nofollow">lovin' feelin'</a>?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16565718172591072532014-05-08T15:11:24.363-07:002014-05-08T15:11:24.363-07:00grodrigues: "If by being a "hypocrite&qu...<b>grodrigues:</b> "<i>If by being a "hypocrite" you mean that I do not oppose, in the sense of speaking out against, every instance of intellectual dishonesty, that is true. But since it is a practical impossibility to do so (that is, by that criterion, everyone is a hypocrite), I am not sure what your point is in stating the obvious.</i>"<br /><br />Plllease! You know very well that that has noting to do with hypocrisy.<br /><br /><b>grodrigues:</b> "<i>... And you have to grant that in expecting everyone to emulate your shining stellar example, you are setting the bar a *tad* too high for the common mortal.</i>"<br /><br />Ah, there is an echo of what I was talking about. You sometimes join in the "let's all <i>condemn</i> Ilíon for his rudeness at calling out intellectual dishonesty (as a matter of principle) instead of alleging it when we're pissed, as we do" group hugs-and-bonding-moments.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54041657006843862422014-05-08T09:01:07.640-07:002014-05-08T09:01:07.640-07:00Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" (Jo...<i>Pilate said to him, "What is truth?"</i> (John 18:38)<br /><br />I wouldn't want to find myself in the same category as Pilate, with his sarcastic non-question. Pilate only believed in "reality", i.e., whatever was declared to be so by Roman Law and its armies. He saw no use for "Truth", and scoffed at any idea that the word might actually have real meaning.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31397881247146580212014-05-08T08:36:19.153-07:002014-05-08T08:36:19.153-07:00@im-skeptical:
"This notion of truth is what...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"This notion of truth is what grod refused to understand or accept in our earlier discussion. He appears to see Truth as some kind of Platonic thing that exists independent of any physical reality."<br /><br />You really ought to refrain from commenting on what you know nothing about.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71614748858835524982014-05-08T08:21:31.497-07:002014-05-08T08:21:31.497-07:00"I really don't know what 'Truth'..."I really don't know what 'Truth' with a big 'T' is other than something like a set of true facts. Perhaps there is some other definition that better fits, I don't know..."<br /><br />Truth is an attribute of a proposition. It's not a universal object. If someone makes a (propositional) statement, you can say that statement is true or not true, but in the absence of such a statement, there is nothing about which you can say it is true. <br /><br />I think many people confuse the term 'reality' with 'truth'. The truth of a proposition is a reflection of its correspondence (or lack thereof) with reality. A fact has no truth value unless it is stated in the form of a proposition. There are many aspects of reality that simply are what they are, and until someone makes a statement about them, they have no truth value in their own right. <br /><br />This notion of truth is what grod refused to understand or accept in our earlier discussion. He appears to see Truth as some kind of Platonic thing that exists independent of any physical reality. Of course, if it is taken in this sense, it really has no meaning. That's why people find it difficult to define.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69717605651860201612014-05-08T06:48:38.423-07:002014-05-08T06:48:38.423-07:00@Ilíon:
"But you're a hypocrite about op...@Ilíon:<br /><br />"But you're a hypocrite about opposing intellectual dishonesty."<br /><br />If by being a "hypocrite" you mean that I do not oppose, in the sense of speaking out against, every instance of intellectual dishonesty, that is true. But since it is a practical impossibility to do so (that is, by that criterion, everyone is a hypocrite), I am not sure what your point is in stating the obvious.<br /><br />Anyway, this is all rather irrelevant and above all, extremely boring. If the subject is me, I hastily plead guilty just for the sake of ending the discussion -- precisely because there is nothing interesting to discuss. And you have to grant that in expecting everyone to emulate your shining stellar example, you are setting the bar a *tad* too high for the common mortal.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58465473009563547402014-05-08T06:47:41.261-07:002014-05-08T06:47:41.261-07:00@Hugo.
And what the hell, while am at it, let us ...@Hugo.<br /><br />And what the hell, while am at it, let us see your response to planks length in May 07, 2014 10:21 PM.<br /><br />"Are you aware of funny mathematical "proof" that show that 1=2 or that 1=0? The reasoning behind your belief that there must have been a first moment is flawed in exactly the same way. Today exists; you cannot deny its existence in order to build an argument. Unjustified belief."<br /><br />Huh? I do not even understand what is supposed to be the rebuttal here. Who denies that today exists? What are you talking about?<br /><br />"Don't get me wrong by the way. I don't believe the universe always existed; it cannot be demonstrated. I do however accept the logical possibility, which renders any argument based on the assumption that the universe did not always exist invalid."<br /><br />There are a couple of things wrong here; first, logical possibility is not the only possible (heh) modality and in fact, Craig (*) himself admits that he is not using such because it is too weak (or too strong, depending on how you look at it). Second, it is incumbent upon you to actually *prove* that it is indeed logically possible, it is not enough to say that "I don't believe" or "I do however accept the logical possibility" as if what you believe or what you accept have any demonstrative force. Now I suspect that whatever you think could or can ground the logical possibility will be a highly contentious *metaphysical* thesis, thereby sinking your argument.<br /><br />(*) Although what in my judgment are the two best versions of the Kalam are not from Craig but from Oderberg and Pruss.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31981659294412952402014-05-08T06:46:31.357-07:002014-05-08T06:46:31.357-07:00@Hugo:
"Please do point out what I got wrong...@Hugo:<br /><br />"Please do point out what I got wrong, I did read the paper but, just like you, didn't take the time to address specific sentences."<br /><br />For context, I will quote the relevant portion, sentence per sentence.<br /><br />"Regarding the article, the author accepts the notion that minds can exist, and do exist, without a natural/physical/material body. Minds are thus a priori considered to be non-natural/non-physical/non-material things."<br /><br />The first time the author even uses the word mind is almost at the end of the article, so where are you getting this from?<br /><br />"Next, arguments presented using that framework, like the AfR, attempt to show that if you start with a purely natural world, you cannot explain things such as minds, which were already defined as non-natural to start with, hence naturalism is false."<br /><br />This is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the argument. The arguments are *not* presented "using that framework", by which I presume you mean substance dualism. And while we are at it, another hint: not all theists are substance dualists, e.g.: I am not. And although admittedly I am a nobody, since what I believe is in the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas...<br /><br />"In this case, the ability to use reason is put to the test. Since that ability is ascribed to minds, defined as non-natural, reason cannot possible be proven to be natural since it depends on non-natural minds doing the reasoning."<br /><br />The argument does revolve around the nature of reason and on what reasoning consists of essentially, but it does not make the silly detour of "ascribed to minds, defined as non-natural, reason cannot possible be proven to be natural" that you impugn it. Have you really read the article or just skimmed it, and thinking for yourself "Oh I already know what game this guy is playing" you then wrote the above?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6671467187834877372014-05-08T05:57:33.908-07:002014-05-08T05:57:33.908-07:00Hugely-erroneous: "Are you aware of funny mat...<b>Hugely-erroneous:</b> "<i>Are you aware of funny mathematical "proof" that show that 1=2 or that 1=0? The reasoning behind your belief that there <b>must</b> have been a first moment is flawed in exactly the same way.</i>"<br /><br />That funny "proof" "proves" that 1=2 or that 1=0 by surreptitiously introducing ‘infinity’ into the algebraic equation. *You* are the one who is trying to introduce ‘infinity’ into the time-count. So, in fact, it is not that PL’s reasoning that “is flawed in exactly the same way”, but rather yours.<br />Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62445662218076187662014-05-08T05:08:58.232-07:002014-05-08T05:08:58.232-07:00grodrigues: "I do not deny being a pompous as...<b>grodrigues:</b> "<i>I do not deny being a pompous ass; but methinks it is better than being an intellectually dishonest derp.</i>"<br /><br />But you're a hypocrite about opposing intellectual dishonesty. Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65377934567399364872014-05-08T05:04:54.081-07:002014-05-08T05:04:54.081-07:00B.Prokop: "
We discussed this very issue (of ...<b>B.Prokop:</b> "<i><br />We discussed this very issue (of whether or not the universe can be infinitely old) way back in ...</i>"<br /><br />Some people *need* that question never to be settled properly, as their (false) metaphysics seems to require its incorrect resolution. You know, sort of like some people love to call other people things like "Hell's Own Constitutionalist", without ever, you know, presenting as argument to estabklish the wickedness of the other, because their self-serving hypocritical leftism requires that the other be <i>eevil</i> by definition.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81061165626162832822014-05-08T04:18:22.504-07:002014-05-08T04:18:22.504-07:00We discussed this very issue (of whether or not th...We discussed this very issue (of whether or not the universe can be infinitely old) way back in 2009, <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/11/to-preface-this-bob-prokop-sometime.html" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>. If I remember correctly, this was only the first of several such conversations/debates on the subject.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63426876799387241772014-05-08T04:12:16.479-07:002014-05-08T04:12:16.479-07:00"I do however accept the logical possibility&..."<i>I do however accept the logical possibility</i>"<br /><br />I don't. I, being alive today, will <i>never</i> be alive at some point in time an infinite number of years in the future. In like manner, for the universe to have no beginning, it must have been around at some point in time an infinite number of years in the past, and we would not be here today (because you can't get from there to here, no matter how long you wait).<br /><br />"<i>Must think about this...</i>" (me)<br /><br />Still thinking.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86027007613415863612014-05-07T22:21:48.352-07:002014-05-07T22:21:48.352-07:00planks length said:
"I strongly believe that ...planks length said:<br />"<i>I strongly believe that time does not and can not extend infinitely into the past. You cannot traverse an infinite series, and for the universe to have always existed means that "today" would forever be in the future and never arrived at. But here we are, so there must have been a first moment of time.</i>"<br /><br />Are you aware of funny mathematical "proof" that show that 1=2 or that 1=0? The reasoning behind your belief that there <b>must</b> have been a first moment is flawed in exactly the same way. Today exists; you cannot deny its existence in order to build an argument. Unjustified belief.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong by the way. I don't believe the universe always existed; it cannot be demonstrated. I do however accept the logical <b>possibility</b>, which renders any argument based on the assumption that the universe did not always exist invalid.<br /><br />"<i>But, can we say that it is a fact that does not exist today, but will exist in 2017?</i>"<br /><br />It's not a fact today. It's extremely likely that there will be a fact in 2017 about the winner of the 2016 election.<br /><br />"<i>And is such a fact even "Truth"?</i>"<br /><br />Facts are part of the set of true things, which I call 'Truth', but I am not sure if we agree on what this means and I agree with that conclusion:<br /><br />"<i> Perhaps we need a better definition of Truth that your "set of all true facts". Or perhaps this is a problem with the English Language, where we use the same word for fundamentally different concepts. Or even we just need to use qualifiers, such as the hoary "Eternal Truths".<br /><br />Must think about this...</i>"<br /><br />I really don't know what 'Truth' with a big 'T' is other than something like a set of true facts. Perhaps there is some other definition that better fits, I don't know...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67716049141484095152014-05-07T16:44:33.829-07:002014-05-07T16:44:33.829-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Buzz off, you pompous ass.&q...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Buzz off, you pompous ass."<br /><br />I do not deny being a pompous ass; but methinks it is better than being an intellectually dishonest derp.<br /><br />And no, I will not buzz off. This is pure comedy gold, and more importantly, a moral cautionary tale in what not to do and what not to be, because, after all, "but for the grace of God, there go I".grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11981674234635002212014-05-07T16:36:49.621-07:002014-05-07T16:36:49.621-07:00grod,
Buzz off, you pompous ass.grod,<br /><br />Buzz off, you pompous ass.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47906985161577950112014-05-07T16:16:23.198-07:002014-05-07T16:16:23.198-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Ah yes, the thread where you...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Ah yes, the thread where you either didn't understand, or deliberately misstated my argument, over and over again, in an asinine attempt to "prove" that I reject all science."<br /><br />I will leave to anyone interested (most probably nobody) to make their own judgment as the thread is a matter of public record. I do note however, that you changed your tune and in fact, it is not the case that I "don't make any arguments are explanations", but rather that I "didn't understand, or deliberately misstated" your argument. In other words, I was correct; you have have serious problems in speaking the truth as I did presented arguments and have given explanations. What is more, after giving evidence of my claim (and I could multiply it by several factors), you did not retracted or acknowledged the mistake, instead you changed the goalposts. In other words, even if unwittingly, you confirmed that "Maybe I do have it all wrong. But you'll never convince me of that" and the invitation to "participate in the discussion with me in a productive way" is just a load of bullshit that you tell in a pathetic attempt to convince yourself and possibly others that you are actually interested in any sort of dialogue.<br /><br />note: and yes, you are a Science-denier. Not that it matters much, since you know next to nothing about Science to be able to coherently deny any of it.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36102458639741341412014-05-07T14:49:42.685-07:002014-05-07T14:49:42.685-07:00That should have read "than your" and no...That should have read "than your" and not "that your".planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-250000735815969472014-05-07T14:48:16.084-07:002014-05-07T14:48:16.084-07:00"but since [the universe] may have no beginni..."<i>but since [the universe] may have no beginning</i>"<br /><br />I did not agree that it had no beginning. I strongly believe that time does not and can not extend infinitely into the past. You cannot traverse an infinite series, and for the universe to have always existed means that "today" would forever be in the future and never arrived at. But here we are, so there <b>must</b> have been a first moment of time.<br /><br />"<i>The set clearly changes</i>"<br /><br />I was tempted to say, "It does not. Only the set of <i>known</i> facts changes." But even while typing this, I thought of historical "facts". At some point, we will know who won the 2016 presidential election. We do not know today who will. So in that sense, it is an unknown fact. But, can we say that it is a fact that does not exist today, but will exist in 2017? And is such a fact even "Truth"? Perhaps we need a better definition of Truth that your "set of all true facts". Or perhaps this is a problem with the English Language, where we use the same word for fundamentally different concepts. Or even we just need to use qualifiers, such as the hoary "Eternal Truths".<br /><br />Must think about this...planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59422196619121399502014-05-07T14:03:50.686-07:002014-05-07T14:03:50.686-07:00planks length said:
""things which we se...planks length said:<br />"<i>"things which we see around us, in the real material world within the physical universe, are all contingent"<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />"would you say the same [i.e., that it's contingent] about the universe itself?"<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />"but it certainly changed"<br /><br />And that's why.</i>"<br /><br />Ok but that contradicts what I wrote above when trying to summarize your view on contingency. Since the universe is changing, it is contingent; but since it may have no beginning, it is thus not true that all contingent things began to exist. So contingency is just a synonym for 'change'? As in the Argument from change?<br /><br />"<i>"Truth, as a set of all facts, is contingent; always existed but change over time."<br /><br />Nope. Dead wrong. Our knowledge of the Truth changes over time, but the Truth itself does not, and is independent of whether we know anything about it or not, or whether we believe the wrong things to be true.<br /><br />"So it looks like abstract things are also contingent under that definition."<br /><br />Again, no - and for the same reasons as above.</i>"<br /><br />What is 'Truth' with a big T if not the set of all true facts? The set clearly changes so why would there be such as thing as 'Truth' which does not change?<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56706990857863666682014-05-07T13:27:22.453-07:002014-05-07T13:27:22.453-07:00"things which we see around us, in the real m..."<i>things which we see around us, in the real material world within the physical universe, are all contingent</i>"<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />"<i>would you say the same [i.e., that it's contingent] about the universe itself?</i>"<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />"<i>but it certainly changed</i>"<br /><br />And that's why.<br /><br />"<i>Truth, as a set of all facts, is contingent; always existed but change over time.</i>"<br /><br />Nope. Dead wrong. Our knowledge of the Truth changes over time, but the Truth itself does not, and is independent of whether we know anything about it or not, or whether we believe the wrong things to be true.<br /><br />"<i>So it looks like abstract things are also contingent under that definition.</i>"<br /><br />Again, no - and for the same reasons as above.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31686968533736456582014-05-07T12:13:46.605-07:002014-05-07T12:13:46.605-07:00Hugo,
"the fact that it's not completely...Hugo,<br /><br />"the fact that it's not completely random right away points to the notion that something within the atom is causing it to work that way. It is thus likely the result of inner forces within the atom acting on its component"<br /><br />My assertion was nothing more than that we don't know. You may believe that everything is caused by something else, but we can't say that for certain because we don't really know. By our current state of observation and knowledge, it is unproven.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49328811181370286642014-05-07T12:00:42.104-07:002014-05-07T12:00:42.104-07:00Ah yes, the thread where you either didn't und...Ah yes, the thread where you either didn't understand, or deliberately misstated my argument, over and over again, in an asinine attempt to "prove" that I reject all science.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com