humour, music, life, sociology. friendly agnostic.

The Multiverse is a Dead Parrot? Is Atheism In Trouble?

Posted by spritzophrenia on August 26, 2011

Is the Multiverse theory dead? If so, what implications might this have for belief in g0d?

I’ve written on cosmology from time to time. Recently I picked up Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos, which does a far better job of explaining M-theory than Hawking and Mlodinow’s recent book. At this point I need to send a public shout-out to Lunagrrrl, who sent me her copy of The Grand Design, which I previewed here. I had good intentions of reviewing it again, but I can’t add much to what I wrote. Get Greene’s book and skip to chapter thirteen instead, it’s much better.

The words below were originally posted last month by Santi Tafarella in his blog, Prometheus Unbound. I think this is worth sharing. Go check out the comments on his blog too.

Santi writes:

parallel multiverse

In 2008, cosmologist Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University of London, told a science journalist for Discover the following:

If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.

Carr said this because our universe appears to have numerous wildly improbable properties hard to explain by chance (especially if our known Big Bang universe is the only roll of the cosmic dice, setting its cosmological constants). Put bluntly, the cosmos appears to have been designed, and with very particular purposes in mind.

In whose mind?

Well, God’s of course!

Like an apple tree following its genetic imperatives, the universe appears to be following the imperatives of its cosmological constants. It apples galaxies, carbon-based life forms (like apple trees), and minds (like our own).

On planet Earth alone, there are 7 billion minds right now and counting.

Whooda thunk it?

Maybe Someone did.

The Discover article gave examples that illustrate our universe’s mind-boggling good luck (or creation by God, if the multiverse doesn’t come to the rescue of atheism). Here’s one:

The early universe was delicately poised between runaway expansion and terminal collapse. Had the universe contained much more matter, additional gravity would have made it implode. If it contained less, the universe would have expanded too quickly for galaxies to form.

The 2008 article that Bernard Carr was quoted in also noted this:

The credibility of string theory and the multiverse may get a boost within the next year or two, once physicists start analyzing results from the Large Hadron Collider, the new, $8 billion particle accelerator built on the Swiss-French border.

Now, fast forward to 2011. What’s the status of string theory and the multiverse in light of the data that has come in from the LHC (Large Hadron Collider)?

Answer: Not good.

Atheists, are you listening?

Theoretical physicist and mathematician Peter Woit of Columbia University, discussing this summer’s String 2011 Conference at his blog, writes that at past conferences they:

. . . often featured a call for progress towards making predictions that could be tested at the LHC [Large Hadron Collider]. With LHC data now coming in, [opening speaker David] Gross acknowledged that this had been a failure: there are no string theory LHC predictions.


As for what the String 2011 Conference’s opening speaker, David Gross, said of the multiverse, here’s Peter Woit again:

Surprisingly, not a word from Gross about anthropics or the multiverse. I assume he’s still an opponent, but perhaps feels that there’s no point in beating a dying horse. Susskind isn’t there and oddly, the only multiverse-related talks are from the two speakers brought in to do public lectures (Brian Greene and Andrei Linde, Hawking’s health has kept him from a planned appearance). So the multiverse is a huge part of the public profile of the conference, but pretty well suppressed at the scientific sections. Also pretty well suppressed is “string phenomenology”, or any attempt to use string theory to do unification. Out of 35 or so talks I see only a couple related to this, which is still the main advertised goal of string theory.

A dying horse. Isn’t that sad? And remember: as goes string theory, so goes the multiverse.

And perhaps even atheism. As uber-atheist Jerry Coyne noted recently at his blog, how the multiverse debate pans out among physicists has unmistakable consequences for the God question:

[M]ultiverse theories . . . represent physicists’ attempts to give a naturalistic explanation for what others see as evidence of design.

But here’s how Peter Woit describes the String 2011 Conference summary by Jeff Harvey:

In Jeff Harvey’s summary of the conference, he notes that many people have remarked that there hasn’t been much string theory at the conference. About the landscape, his comment is that “personally I think it’s unlikely to be possible to do science this way.” He describes the situation of string theory unification as like the Monty Python parrot “No, he’s not dead, he’s resting.” while expressing some hope that a miracle will occur at the LHC or in the study of string vacua, reviving the parrot.

That the summary speaker at the main conference for a field would compare the state of the main public motivation for the field as similar to that of the parrot in the Monty Python sketch is pretty remarkable. In the sketch, the whole joke is the parrot’s seller’s unwillingness, no matter what, to admit that what he was selling was a dead parrot.

And, as for Scientific American’s recent coverage of the multiverse hypothesis, Woit is critical:

One might be tempted to criticize Scientific American for keeping this alive, but they just reflect the fact that this pseudo-science continues to have significant influence at the highest levels of the physics establishment.

The multiverse is pseudo-science. Really?

Based on what Bernard Carr said in 2008, and what Woit reports of the goings-on at the String 2011 Conference and in Scientific American, should this alert us to the possibility that atheism itself might be quietly trending in the direction of Monty Python’s dead parrot?

Monty Python | Dead Parrot Sketch


? What do you think?
Please subscribe (top left) 🙂

Please share this article:

26 Responses to “The Multiverse is a Dead Parrot? Is Atheism In Trouble?”

  1. Troy said

    Your haughty tone on Athiests won’t find a lot of readers. Most people who are interested in these topics enough to read the science grasp things like the anthropoic principle, and don’t just stop learning more facts when they get to the point they want to prove. You know Atheism is on the increase, so acting like it isn’t is very unscientific as well. At least you play an ‘interesting’ (i.e. not common) angle, but it still isn’t as unique as you think and trying to scientifically prove something non-real will never work, so you’re just wasting time for yourself and others.

    • Thanks for the response, Troy. Just to clarify, it’s Santi’s writing, not mine, unless you consider the introductory paragraphs “haughty”.

      It’s undoubtably true, but I’m not sure what your point is when you say Atheism is on the increase. Depending on whose statistics one believes, and what questions one asks, I have seen studies that say Islam is on the increase, as is Pentecostal christianity, Buddhism, Mormonism and probably most belief systems. This says nothing about whether they are true or false. (I’m a sociologist of religion, and an open agnostic.)

    • On re-reading, I probably need to apologise. I hadn’t considered that Santi’s article could be read as “needling” atheists. I didn’t read it that way. My bad. I was more interested in the science news, ie “Wow, maybe multiverse and string theory is really in trouble, how interesting.”

  2. There is definitely a fallacy going on here. If Bill likes idea A and Sam likes idea B, when Bill realises he can disprove B that doesn’t make idea A true. I enjoyed the discussion of the problems with the multiverse and string theory. I’d like to know more about it! This is great, cutting edge science news! But, alas, the repeated mentions about the doom of atheism seems not only tangential and irrelevant but fairly fallacious. I say this with more than a little bit of confidence because I’ve never liked the multiverse hypothesis because it literally deals with issues that are unobservable and hence unknowable in principle. In fact, I would imagine that many atheists who are ignostics (statements about transcendent things have no meaning) would actually LIKE to hear that string theory and (therefore?) multiverse hypothesis is seeming more unlikely. Regardless, ontologically speaking, atheism may be correct whether multiverse hypothesis is true or not; the ideas are independent. Some atheists like the multiverse idea because it provides a “no-brainer” cosmological answer that guarantees all possible universes and thus sentient observers (us). But that’s too easy. If somebody is going to eschew metaphysics of the religious sort on the basis of verificationism then one should also eschew multiverse hypothesis on the same basis. I think the same thing holds for very solid agnostics: they should be agnostic towards God AND other cosmological explanations that have not enough supporting evidence.

    p.s. I’ve noticed Santi likes to bash atheism every now and then and I see it and think, “Sigh. Here he goes again.” 😉 Oh well, its all part of the discussion.

    • Yes, as with other agnostics I’ve read online, there is a bit of sitting on the fence and taking pot shots at both sides.

      (For the record, both atheists and religious folk also bash agnostics, so it’s all fun and games in the world of “my belief trumps your belief”. Silly on the part of atheists and agnostics as they have much in common.)

      In retrospect I hadn’t considered that it could be read as “needling” atheists. My bad. I was more interested in the science news, ie “Wow, maybe multiverse and string theory is really in trouble, how interesting.”

      • Yeah pretty interesting news. I didn’t realise until I read this. I wonder if the changes are going to be reflected in the Big Bang Theory sitcom… Sheldon is a string theory supporter after all 😀

  3. Russell McMahon said

    Re Iain McMahon’s ” … atheism may be correct whether multiverse hypothesis is true or not; the ideas are independent …”

    The argument was (is) that the “tuning” of the monoverse in favour of “our” existence, or of existence at all, is vastly improbable beyond any hope of being explicable by anything other than a grand designer.

    If this is true then the existence of a monoverse and God are tightly connected.

    Addressing why this may not be true is what is rquired to “defend” atheism in a monoverse.

  4. Anne said

    Hi Jon,
    Not sure I am “with” this particular post, but I hope you’ll keep blogging on this subject! I also tried to read The Grand Design and was very disappointed. (I’m not a physics major -or even minor!- and the book was hyped for non-science people.) I’ll look at Greene’s book. I’m more interested in the ideas… and separately, I’m interested in how they relate to theology. Even though my understanding of science is very rough, for many years the idea of parallel universes has made sense to me.

    • Lovely to see you Anne.

      Greene’s book is still written at a relatively popular, but more “science-ey” than Hawkings, so my apologies if it confuses you more. What I did like is that it actually explained what M-theory (multiverse theory, keeping it simple) actually is, and how they came to think of it. It’s still not easy stuff, though.

      I think I linked to an article on theology and parallel universes in my preview of Hawking’s book… yes, here it is: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_multiverse_problem/

      • Anne said

        Thanks, Jon! I’ll look at both the article and the book. I liked the first two chapters of Grand Design but lost interest when it dissolved into formula talk (and, I had an audio version, so couldn’t skip around). : )

  5. SugarPop said

    ooooh – this is juicy!
    I’m enjoying the comments your post, courtesy of Santi, is provoking… 😀

  6. The reason why atheism and multiverse hypothesis and other such ideas are independent is because they are talking about two different things. Atheism is either (1) an ontological claim that no god exists (a.k.a Strong Atheism) or (2) the practical circumstance where sufficient evidence to prove god’s existence is lacking and thus belief in Him cannot (yet?) be achieved (a.k.a Weak Atheism). Agnostics may also be weak atheists. The closest parallel between atheism and the multiverse hypothesis is in Strong Atheism; both are making ontological claims. Both may also, therefore, have opinions about cosmogenesis. However, since the strictest sense of atheism is simply the non-belief in the proposition put forward by Theism – namely that god exists – an atheism that then goes on to make metaphysical statements despite evidence is probably overstepping its mandate and is now a very different idea altogether.

    For me, the playing field hasn’t really changed. Multiverse hypothesis is dealing with a metaphysical issue. Ex Nihilo is dealing with a metaphysical issue. No metaphysical statement is provable and no transcendent reality is observable within our universe (all observations are by definition contingent on material phenomena). Agnosticism and at least weak atheism are as strong or weak as they always were despite the successes or failures of multiverse proponents. Unless it were only a truly exclusive two-option choice between Theism and Multiverse Hypothesis, in order for the arguments in favour of God to strengthen it would require new and better evidences rather than failures of the multiverse hypothesis. After all, multiverse hypothesis or any number of other cosmological theories may actually be correct despite there being no way for us to prove any of it. That’s why, in my opinion, discussions of cosmogenesis are a waste of time as much as anything can be.

    • Ah, interesting point Iain, and one I hadn’t thought of.

      Putting what you’re saying in simple terms, and correct me if I’m wrong:

      The failure of multiverse theory doesn’t prove God exists. But the success of multiverse theory does not disprove God. (On the latter, see Paul Davies’ quote at the end of this: https://spritzophrenia.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/hawkings-grand-design-cosmology-still-needs-god/ ). So, atheists who are hanging their hopes on a multiverse are just as misguided as theists who hang their hopes on a non-multiverse.

      However, I think what you are also saying is that *nothing* about how the universe began can tell us anything about God? However logical this idea may be from an analytical point of view, it seems to me that maybe this misses something? I can’t put my finger on it.

      By analogy, let’s say something looking like a spaceship appears in front of me, and what look like aliens walk out, and leave an alien artifact behind. Now, if I was extremely sceptical, I could say “This tells me nothing about whether ETs exist. It could have been my imagination.” Most people would say, well surely it says “something” about aliens, even if you can’t “prove” it on extreme sceptical grounds?

      In the same way, if we were able to somehow view the beginning of our universe, would this tell us nothing?

      Are you saying that any physical theory cannot tell us anything about God? This seems like an extreme position to me.

      Nice to see you back again 🙂

      • Thanks 🙂

        >The failure of multiverse theory doesn’t prove God exists. But the success of multiverse theory does not disprove God. So, atheists who are hanging their hopes on a multiverse are just as misguided as theists who hang their hopes on a non-multiverse.

        Yes, but of course it gets ever weirder when you consider that a Christian might support multiverses and an atheist might agree there is probably a monoverse. That means that there really is no solid way to attack the religious issues by attacking the science.

        I don’t think it is so much as that we can learn nothing about the formation of the universe and this has no religious implications. We can learn loads about the present universe. But there is a limit to our knowledge. When the universe began it rapidly expanded from a very small point. Let’s imagine this point behaved initially very similarly to a black hole. With black holes AND with the early universe, there is a certain distance from the singularity known as the event horizon which creates problems. We can know information about the early, expanding universe AFTER it escaped the event horizon but prior to that we have no knowledge. This is why discussions about “how the universe began” that make reference to the Big Bang and its theological implications are sensible whereas discussions which are about the state of events “prior to”(?) the universe or the why and how the big bang may have occurred are metaphysics. Anything discussing cosmology earlier on the timeline than this event horizon blossoming point is speculation (and depending on the physics of time with respect to the big bang, the idea of “prior to” the big bang may be a complete error).

        The sceptic who disbelieves the aliens in front of his face is more like a cartesian sceptic who wonders if he is in the matrix (or being tricked by a demon about reality) or the chinese scholar who thinks he might be a butterfly dreaming about being a man. Everyone has to overcome this level of scepticism in order to practically function within the world. BUT this problem exists for the religious and the non-religious alike (so for simplicity, you can ignore this while discussion religion since the issue cancels itself out by being inescapably on both sides).

        The sceptic who doesn’t speculate about the state of the universe prior to the Big Bang event horizon is different. For one, they’re reflecting the state of the physics. As far as I’m aware, it is a hard limit on any knowledge or observation possible to scientists and mathematicians. ‘Brane Theory, Multiverse Hypothesis, Modal Realism… all of these ideas are ultimately only going to be made more or less appealing by philosophical argumentation rather than hard scientific evidence. And when sufficient evidence does not exist to make one hypothesis have better explanatory power and scope than another the honest scientist must remain a sceptic. Not to mention that if you can’t disprove the null hypothesis – the negation of the claim you are trying to prove – no scientific theory can ever be considered true. Science definitely doesn’t work here. The rest is just nice ideas nobody can prove. Until we receive more information, and we may never be able to do so, cosmogenetic agnosticism is the way to go.

        Oh, and IF we do actually learn more about the earliest state of the universe and by some bizarre miracle learn about the state of affairs when the Big Bang occurred… all good. Bad ideas get discarded and better ideas get updated on the basis of evidence. And that’s good science 😉

  7. I find it most interesting when String-Theory/M-Theory is used (or abused?) to support the idea of a Multiverse (rather than a Universe) specifically to disprove theists. (Let’s let alone the fact that string-theory has no evidence [yet] to support itself).

    The existence of a Multiverse most definitely does away with an anthropic principle, however, it by no means does away with theism, God, or ‘God’s job’.

    After all, all these multiverses would exist within some sort of medium themselves (“The Bulk”), which would also be something of a super-cosmic universe making ‘machine’. “What built the Bulk?”.

    It doesn’t necessarily do away with God, it just add yet another step to the chicken-and-the-egg argument.


    …and as far as atheists and atheism goes, they are not immune to the disease of religiosity. Fundamentalism is alive and well within Atheistic circles too.

    I have no problem with Atheists (I do have problem with fundamental ones though), but I believe it is critically important for them to realize that their chosen Belief-System is not the natural default position and FACT. It is never-the-less a Belief-System.

  8. Greetings,

    I think you’ll find that it’s just simplest form of String Theory that’s been discounted – not the more complicated versions:

    Kindest regards,


    • Thanks James, useful link. If “supersymmetry” is a simple form of String Theory then you could be right. I will have to read more as the BBC article doesn’t really talk about strings. Regardless, it’s interesting – and perhaps frustrating – to see what the LHC is telling us about the universe.

  9. Udaybhanu Chitrakar said

    Multiverse Theory is probably not true

    Scientists have shown that total energy of our universe is zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. If this data can be relied upon, then on the basis of this data we can say that probably multiverse theory is not true.

    Scientists have also shown that anything having a mass will occupy some space. Conversely it will also be true that anything that will occupy some space will have some mass. As anything having a mass will occupy some space, so it can also be said that anything that does not have a mass does not occupy any space. Conversely it will also be true that anything that does not occupy any space cannot have any mass. The above conclusions can be summarized as follows:

    1) Anything that has a mass occupies some space,

    2) Anything that occupies some space will have certain mass,

    3) Anything that does not have a mass does not occupy any space, and

    4) Anything that does not occupy any space cannot have any mass.

    If the above four conclusions are true, then we can say that if our universe does not have any mass, then as per 3) above our universe as a whole does not occupy any space. But this can be true if, and only if, our universe is the only universe, and if there is nothing else outside our universe, no space, no time, no matter and no other universes. In that case as there will be no space outside our universe, so it cannot be said that this universe as a whole occupies any space at all, because there will be no space at all for it to occupy. So as per 4) above universe as a whole not occupying any space will not have any mass.

    But if our universe is only a member universe in a multiverse with billions and billions of other universes in it, then it cannot be said that it does not occupy any space, because in that case it will share/occupy some space in the superspace, or hyperspace, with other universes of that multiverse, and so as per 2) above its mass cannot be zero. Multiverse as a whole will not occupy any space, because when we consider the multiverse as one whole unit, there cannot be any space outside the multiverse. Therefore multiverse as a whole not occupying any space will have no mass. But each and every member universe of that multiverse will have some mass, because each and every one of them will occupy some space within the multiverse. So if multiverse theory is true, then total mass of our universe cannot be exactly zero. And therefore if total mass of our universe is not exactly zero, then neither can we say that its total energy is exactly zero.

    Thus now we are in a dilemma. If multiverse theory is true, then total energy of our universe is not exactly zero. And so in that case scientists will have to modify all the existing theories of cosmology, because none of them will be valid any more. Based on the fact that total energy of the universe is exactly zero, scientists have repeatedly said that “universe can and will create itself from nothing”, and that “the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.” As total energy of the universe can no longer be taken to be zero, so the story of our universe originating from nothing will also come to an end here.

    But scientists might claim here that they have made no mistake while calculating total energy of the universe, and that they can say with full confidence that its energy cannot have any value other than zero. If that is the case, then they will have to admit that multiverse theory is not true, and that our universe is the only universe that is there, and that there is not even a single more universe other than our universe. But in that case how will they explain the fine tuning of certain parameters in our universe that is absolutely necessary for bringing us here on earth, if they do not believe in the existence of any creator God?

    Here scientists will perhaps retort that 1) is a law of nature. Laws of nature govern the behaviour of things in nature, that is, these laws apply to the things within the universe, and as such cannot be applied to the universe as a whole. Or they can simply say that they do not know. If they say they do not know, then it is all right. But if they say that natural laws do not apply to the universe itself, then it can be asked: If it is a rule that natural laws cannot be applied to the universe as a whole, then is this rule general? Or, is there any exception to it? Does this rule apply to all the known laws of nature? If this rule applies in general to all the known laws of nature, then we will say that this rule has already been violated by someone who is none other than Stephen Hawking himself, who has applied quantum theory and laws of gravity, that are the two laws of nature, to the universe as a whole, in order to study its behaviour at its beginning. And nobody has said that he has done anything scientifically incorrect. As there is already a precedence that laws of nature can be applied to the universe as a whole, then why should there be an exception in our case?

    Actually what are the laws of nature? Scientists have observed the behavior of matters, particles and other entities within our universe and they have found that these matters and particles behave in some orderly manner, that their behaviour follows certain pattern, certain regularity. That is why apples from apple trees always fall on the ground, they do never go upwards. These patterns and regularities were afterward expressed through laws of nature. With the help of these laws it has been possible for the scientists to describe and predict the behaviour of matters and particles within our universe. Thus with the help of Newton’s laws of gravity we can correctly predict when the next solar or lunar eclipse is going to take place, because Newton’s laws can correctly describe the movements of heavenly bodies like sun, moon and other planets and their relative positions in the sky. Similarly if it would have been possible for scientists to observe the behaviour of universes within a multiverse, supposing that multiverse theory is true, then they could also have formulated certain laws that did actually govern the behaviour of universes within the multiverse. But this will never be possible, because for observing other universes within the multiverse scientists will have to be placed within the multiverse but not within any universe. But they will always be within some universe, and from within a universe it is not possible to study the behaviour of other universes excepting the one in which they are accidentally placed. But by studying only one universe it is not possible to formulate any law that will govern the behaviour of universes in general.

    However we can make an assumption here. We can assume that the laws that govern the behaviour of matters and particles within our universe are also the laws that govern the behaviour of universes in general. Thus we can say that when universe is tiny enough (not yet born, but going to be born), its behaviour will be governed by quantum laws. When it has sufficiently gained in size so that quantum laws can no longer be applied to it, its behaviour will be governed either by Newton’s laws of gravity or by Einstein’s general theory of relativity. In the same manner other known laws of nature will also be applicable to the universe as a whole. Thus we can say that as the total mass of our universe is zero, therefore our universe as a whole does not occupy any space. This is because it is a law of nature that something having a mass will always occupy some space, and therefore something having no mass occupies no space. So our universe having no mass does not occupy any space. But if it is really the case, then multiverse theory cannot be true, because if multiverse theory is true, then our universe occupies some space within the multiverse, and so its mass cannot be zero. Mass of the universe not being zero, neither its total energy can be zero.

    So we have two options before us:

    1) Multiverse theory is true, in which case total energy of the universe is not zero. So it cannot originate simply from nothing.

    2) Total mass of the universe is zero, and therefore it cannot occupy any space, in which case multiverse theory is false.

    We will have to choose any one option out of these two, but we cannot choose both at the same time. We cannot say that our universe has simply originated from nothing, and at the same time say that our universe is not the only one of its kind, there are billions and billions of other universes out there.

    However there is a third option also. Earlier we have assumed that the laws that govern the behaviour of the things within our universe also govern the behaviour of the universes as a whole. Here the option is that instead of assuming any such thing we will simply say that we do not know.

  10. […] The Multiverse is a Dead Parrot? Is Atheism In Trouble? (spritzophrenia.wordpress.com) […]

  11. Jual said


    […]The Multiverse is a Dead Parrot? Is Atheism In Trouble? « Spritzophrenia[…]…

  12. Carl said

    Terrific site!
    “Science is not things as we want them to be…it’s things as they are”
    (Albert Einstein)
    ‘Things as they are’, to the best of OUR capacities, “are”:
    Proofs–Laws–Theories– Principles….descendingly into “what we want them to be”
    The Laws of Thermodynamics disallow BOTH spontaneous physical origin and eternal physical existence (would have achieved heat death).
    ALL confuting propositions are firmly ensconced at the “wanting” spectrum end.
    Pandeistically, “infinite regress” (a Dawkins favorite) is obviated by a universe which cannot be argued ‘wide or long’ (beginning or eternal).
    Richard Dawkins argues provability of a purely scientifically natural universe.
    He can’t argue into existence a universe in explicit polar opposition to our most fundamental physical laws.
    “Singularity” (smaller than a bread box) “Banged” in a billionth of a billionth of a second into the size of the Milky Way (larger than a bread box).
    George Orwell said: “Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them”. No one can confute (maybe Orwell’s “intellectual”) that distance distinguishes those two. It would take “light” 100,000 to 150,000 years to travel “that distance”. An express violation of the insuperability of “light”.
    Richard Dawkins needs to get out more.


  13. Damien said

    Each of your buddies will adore acme of perfection of the broadcast journalism that you outmanoeuvre granted them being as how some of these online Olympics are fairly sophisticated annex it will take
    a as far as inasmuch as everyone on cut the mustard all over Lordship of the
    various levels. Playing online track meet is accurate ace interest for ancestry when they are ended with their want absolute music annum.
    Online field day cut the mustard take it easy certain an existence and mercenary them cool exteriorly appropriate ameliorate with Lordship of their online friends after accurate dearly
    love to academic year inside Passion play that
    could outfox been fairly stressful.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: