Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can anything exist for an infinite time or outside of time?
DPowell
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 106 of 158 (559102)
05-06-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Rahvin
05-06-2010 2:48 PM


Re: First Cause
Sorry for my terse posts to you guys, but it takes a lot key-mashing to respond to 8-10 people who more or less are in consensus against me.
Your remarks regarding the Creator are off the mark because it is within the nature of the Creator (the Source, the Originator) not to need a cause. That's why He is the Creator...He is the first...He answers the question of First Cause as, "He Is" (in the same way that you guys say that the Universe "Just Is").
For me, Ockham's razor does not fit the case because I don't see The Universe Just Is as answering all of the questions. Simpler, perhaps. But if does not answer the question (and I do not think that it does), then it is not the preferred answer.
God has chosen to reveal Himself most clearly in His Word (the Bible). That is the nature of His preferred mode of revelation. I can throw Bible at you, but you do not recognize it as authoritative; so I can present the evidence, but you will not embrace it. I can throw something like the fact that God said 4000+ years ago (recorded 3500+ years ago) that He would limit the lifetime of man to 120 years (Gen. 6:3) and people even in our advanced medical day abide by this:
Oldest people - Wikipedia
(Yes, there appears to be a woman who reportedly lived 122 years, but she is not technically a *man,* and I don't think that God is as hard and fast in the way he deals with numbers as we are... I think 120 years is more of a general-ish guideline He set down in mandating how things would be.)
On a final note, scientists at the top of their fields recognize that science does not determine fact solely and absolutely. Science answers the questions science can answer in the way that science can answer them. And yet there are realms of reality that lie beyond the scope of science. This where philosophy, cosmology, theology, etc., must step in and answer the questions.
What do you think on this matter? Let's say that God exists (just for discussion's sake); He is infinitely large (in fact, beyond space), infinitely ancient (in fact, outside of time), and Spirit rather than body. How, by scientific methods, do you propose that we prove or attempt to disprove His existence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Rahvin, posted 05-06-2010 2:48 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2010 3:50 PM DPowell has seen this message but not replied
 Message 109 by hooah212002, posted 05-06-2010 4:33 PM DPowell has seen this message but not replied
 Message 110 by Rahvin, posted 05-06-2010 5:10 PM DPowell has seen this message but not replied
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2010 5:15 PM DPowell has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 158 (559106)
05-06-2010 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by DPowell
05-06-2010 3:18 PM


Re: First Cause
First Cause questions are meangingless because they always end up in infinite regression. you answer one question it simply leads to another so that you are right back at where you started. But let's indulge these questions nonetheless.
Your remarks regarding the Creator are off the mark because it is within the nature of the Creator (the Source, the Originator) not to need a cause.
If the Creator haphazardly created something, then there is no goal-directed focus towards creating. If the Creator delliberately creates something, then He does so with a purpose in mind.
God has chosen to reveal Himself most clearly in His Word (the Bible).
That's not clear at all. That's a claim, just like it is in the Qur'an/ Doesn't make it so.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 3:18 PM DPowell has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 108 of 158 (559108)
05-06-2010 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by DPowell
05-06-2010 2:12 PM


Re: First Cause
And your empirical evidence against the existence of God was...? Please play by your own rules.
Such a short sentence, so many fallacies.
The onus is on you to provide empirical evidence for your magick sky daddy. I'm quite certain this has been told to you already. If YOU make an extraordinary claim (like the one you are making that there is some sort of god fellow roaming the sky, waiting for you to come hang out with him) then YOU need to prove it empirically, not I. Reading from a source (the bible) that itself has no hard evidence of it's asserted claims is also not acceptable. That is called circular logic.
If I told you I had a Tyrannosaurus Rex in my room, would you have to prove I did not? Or would it fall on me to show you that I did? Would you accept someone else writing down that they heard someone who knew a guy that said he saw it?
Again, we have a faith and belief section where you can quote bible scripture until you bleed from you palms. Here, you are posting in the science section. Either provide data, along with sound reasoned arguments, or stop posting in this section. (tits or gtfo)
Also: It would also be preferential for you to add a bit more than 1 liners to your responses. The text of this forum will remain here quite a bit longer than you will be posting here, so you DO have sufficient time to attempt to refute any and all responses.

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:12 PM DPowell has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 109 of 158 (559109)
05-06-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by DPowell
05-06-2010 3:18 PM


Re: First Cause
What do you think on this matter? Let's say that God exists (just for discussion's sake); He is infinitely large (in fact, beyond space), infinitely ancient (in fact, outside of time), and Spirit rather than body. How, by scientific methods, do you propose that we prove or attempt to disprove His existence?
This is not the thread for that. This is not the section of the forum for that either. Go start a new thread or join in on one that is already started.

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 3:18 PM DPowell has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 110 of 158 (559111)
05-06-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by DPowell
05-06-2010 3:18 PM


Re: First Cause
Sorry for my terse posts to you guys, but it takes a lot key-mashing to respond to 8-10 people who more or less are in consensus against me.
I understand the problems with the proverbial dog-pile. It's an unfortunate inevitability in an online forum environment. I would suggest to you, as the mods often have in cases like this, that you shouldn;t feel required to reply to every single person, but you should feel the need to make those replies that you do make contain some substance. We'd rather have you respond to 10% of the replies you generate with quality arguments than reply to everyone with simplistic one-liners.
Your remarks regarding the Creator are off the mark because it is within the nature of the Creator (the Source, the Originator) not to need a cause. That's why He is the Creator...He is the first...He answers the question of First Cause as, "He Is" (in the same way that you guys say that the Universe "Just Is").
Why does the Universe itself not occupy the role of the "uncaused?" Why must there be a "Creator?" More importantly, how is one to know the qualities of such an entity if you cannot even show that it exists? How would I differentiate a "Creator" that actually exists in objective reality from one that exists only within your own mind? Why should I push back the "uncaused" beginning one notch, when I know that the Universe exists but I do not know that a "Creator" exists?
Remember, I'm going for logical consistency here. That means that, if you assert that "everything requires a cause," logically that statement must apply to any proposed "Creator."
If you say that "there are exceptions to the rule of causality," then not only are you engaging in special pleading (a logical fallacy in itself), you are also violating Occam's Razor by inserting an additional entity without any evidence-based reason for doing so.
For me, Ockham's razor does not fit the case because I don't see The Universe Just Is as answering all of the questions. Simpler, perhaps. But if does not answer the question (and I do not think that it does), then it is not the preferred answer.
It neither needs nor intends to answer "all of the questions." It needs and intends to answer the question "what is the origin of the Universe?" If you accept "The Creator Just Is," why could you not accept that "the Universe just is?"
I'd also like to remind you that our notions of causality are the result of the Universe itself and its framework of time. Let me use an analogy:
Imagine time as being analogous to the North/South axis of the Earth, and let the beginning of time be represented by the North pole. Causality is modeled here as well - just as every action has a preceding "cause" adjacent to it in time, every point on the Earth has an adjacent point closer to the North pole.
What "caused" the beginning of time is therefore analogous to asking "what is farther North than the North Pole?"
The answer to this question requires more information than we possess. There are innumerable conceivable possibilities (yes, including divine Creation), but very few are also supported by evidence, and even those are not very solid or well-tested. Ojective evidence tells us that the Universe is finite, having an absolute minimum value for time (at which point all of space was confined to a single dimensionless point as well), and that the Universe has expanded since then in a process we can still observe today through the redshift of distant stars and the cosmic microwave background. Our understanding of gravity and spacetime also shows that mass literally warps, or distorts, both space and time, which is indirectly observable through such processes as gravitational lensing and more direct measurements on Einstein's Theory of Relativity (which is extremely well-supported by evidence).
Cavediver and Son Goku are the people to listen to at this point, because they are real-life, actual-factual physicists who have studied cosmology professionally. The best I can tell you at this point is that, because mass causes curvatures in spacetime, causality as we understand it from a human perspective gets incredibly weird as you approach the first moment, T=0.
God has chosen to reveal Himself most clearly in His Word (the Bible). That is the nature of His preferred mode of revelation. I can throw Bible at you, but you do not recognize it as authoritative; so I can present the evidence, but you will not embrace it. I can throw something like the fact that God said 4000+ years ago (recorded 3500+ years ago) that He would limit the lifetime of man to 120 years (Gen. 6:3) and people even in our advanced medical day abide by this:
Oldest people - Wikipedia
(Yes, there appears to be a woman who reportedly lived 122 years, but she is not technically a *man,* and I don't think that God is as hard and fast in the way he deals with numbers as we are... I think 120 years is more of a general-ish guideline He set down in mandating how things would be.)
I'm sorry, but all of this is irrelevant and completely off-topic. "The Bible says so" is just as insufficient as it would be for me to say "Steven Hawking said so." Biblical assertions are perfectly welcome here if they can be corroborated with supporting evidence from the outside world. In other words, if you were to assert that there was a global Flood as described in Genesis, in the science forums you would be required to submit evidence from geology, as an example, showing objective evidence of a global Flood aside from the claims of your ancient text.
As it pertains to this thread, you are suggesting that we should assume the universality of causality even as it applies to the Universe itself, yet make a special exception for a deity you claim to exist. In this case, you must provide objective evidence that your deity actually exists, that causality does not apply to it, that it did in fact cause the Universe, etc.
On a final note, scientists at the top of their fields recognize that science does not determine fact solely and absolutely. Science answers the questions science can answer in the way that science can answer them. And yet there are realms of reality that lie beyond the scope of science. This where philosophy, cosmology, theology, etc., must step in and answer the questions.
Cosmology, incidentally, is a field of science.
Science does not pretend to answer all questions. However, it does use evidence to support the answers it does give. The theories of science are tested against reality to determine their accuracy; we can never know everything (or anything, really) with 100% certainty, but we can test our knowledge against reality to see if we're close, and what is practical. I can never be absolutely certain that gravity is not the result of invisible angels holding me down to the ground, but the accuracy and practical usefulness of the modern Theory of Gravity make it vastly superior.
Science is able to answer questions only about the objective world around us. It cannot answer subjective questions. But it is extremely good at unlocking the various secrets of the Universe. It is only via the scientific method that we today have a firm grasp on the nature of the expansion of teh Universe, the orbits of planets, the nature of gravity and the other fundamental forces, and so on.
Theology makes a great many assertions, but has a remarkably poor track record when it comes to either accuracy or practical usefulness.
What do you think on this matter? Let's say that God exists (just for discussion's sake); He is infinitely large (in fact, beyond space), infinitely ancient (in fact, outside of time), and Spirit rather than body. How, by scientific methods, do you propose that we prove or attempt to disprove His existence?
How, by any methods, could we determine such a thing with any reasonable degree of certainty? Magical invisible and intangible all-powerful beings are by their nature unfalsifiable; I can no more disprove your notion of "God" than you can disprove the notion of Allah, or Quetzalcoatl, or ghosts, or fairies, or any other unfalsifiable assertion.
That, of course, is the problem - if you tell me about something that is compeltely invisible, completely intangible, infinitely large, ancient, knowledgeable, and powerful, what reason do I have to believe you?
If I tried to convince you that the Universe was Created last Thursday by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, along with all of our memories and the world around us with the appearance of age, could you falsify such an assertion? Would you believe me? Specifically, why or why not? What if I had an ancient book and a few million other people who believed me already? What if I called the Flying Spaghetti Monster "God" instead? What would be the objective difference between my assertion and yours?
This is the real problem with theological assertions. If a given assertion cannot be differentiated from any other similar assertion in terms of its accuracy as it relates to the objective, real world, then it has the same level of accuracy as any random guess that anyone can conceive - and models of the Universe tend to work just as well without them as with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 3:18 PM DPowell has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 158 (559113)
05-06-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by DPowell
05-06-2010 3:18 PM


Re: First Cause
(Yes, there appears to be a woman who reportedly lived 122 years, but she is not technically a *man,*
So a woman is not a human? Regardless Shigechiyo Izumi was a man (as in male) who lived past 122 years.
scientists at the top of their fields recognize that science does not determine fact solely and absolutely. Science answers the questions science can answer in the way that science can answer them. And yet there are realms of reality that lie beyond the scope of science. This where philosophy, cosmology, theology, etc., must step in and answer the questions.
Cosmology is a hard science
What do you think on this matter? Let's say that God exists (just for discussion's sake); He is infinitely large (in fact, beyond space), infinitely ancient (in fact, outside of time), and Spirit rather than body. How, by scientific methods, do you propose that we prove or attempt to disprove His existence?
Equally valid question: How do you propose to know he's "infinitely large" and goes "beyond space and is outside of time" if you are neither of those things? What would you propose that we prove or attempt to disprove His existence?

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 3:18 PM DPowell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by DPowell, posted 10-06-2010 11:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(2)
Message 112 of 158 (559114)
05-06-2010 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by DPowell
05-06-2010 2:11 PM


Re: First Cause
You do realize we can't/haven't even seen the farthest reaches of the Universe, right?
What does this have to do with anything? You said you could easily explain how god did it, so go right ahead. Explain it.
Go read something.
Go make love to your mother.
The Big Bang, etc., have not been as "mathematically demonstrated" as people would like to think.
You're starting to demonstrate how little you know. You are becoming a waste of time, which I thought at first you were at least trying to debate properly.
If you'd like to explain how god created the universe I'd love to read it, if not, enjoy basking in your own ignorance.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : As per admin request, language was inappropriate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:11 PM DPowell has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by lyx2no, posted 05-06-2010 7:07 PM onifre has replied
 Message 119 by AdminSlev, posted 05-07-2010 4:09 PM onifre has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 113 of 158 (559119)
05-06-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by DPowell
05-06-2010 2:20 PM


Let's Do Lunch
Help me here if you can: I think it's fair to say that I put every bit as much consideration into my off-the-top-of-my-head statement as you put into yours, so I'm failing to understand why you didn't read mine and immediately see the light. I mean, if I said one of the letters of the alphabet was R and you said one of the letters of the alphabet was J I'd be like, "Why, yes, it is. Isn't that something?" And then I'd go on to wonder if there is more to this thinking things then just saying what's on the top of my head. But for you no lightbulb seems to have lit; there was no trace of hesitation in recognition of the utter vapidity of the original statement. You just went on as if you had said something that I was expected to think meaningful. Welcome, by the way, to EvC. I think you're going to find that some folks here aren't looking for something to swallow, but for something to digest.
And, yet, *if* in fact God created the Universe, then the Universe itself would not be independent of causation.
*If* worms had machine guns robins wouldn't eff with 'em. I think this is almost certainly true. However, that does not imply that worms do, in fact, have machine guns. They almost certainly don't. Something more is needed to establish oligochaeta armaments. Observations perhaps. Have you any observations of this "God" you speak of?
And *if* there is no God to create the Universe, then the Universe more or less assumes the place of *God,* no?
Yes: no. If a toad didn't create the Universe does that make the Universe a toad?
Matter of fact, I'm hard put to find any instance where I can't *if* contrary to reality; therefore, I'm thinking it would be most useful were *ifs* backed-up with something of substance *if* one is going to assert they conform to reality.
Furthermore, you seem to be confused as to where the burden of proof lies. It doesn't lie with those who do not assert knowledge. If I were a brushtail possum, and therefore unable to grasp the simplest of facts even with two opposable thumbs, do you suppose that everything said to me would be true because I don't have the wherewithal to say different?
How the Universe came to be or how life arose are faits accompli. If a god was in fact responsible for this it did it in a fashion that cannot be sussed out by pseudo-philosophy or real philosophy, for that matter because questions do not create reality.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:20 PM DPowell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by DPowell, posted 10-04-2010 11:38 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 114 of 158 (559120)
05-06-2010 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by onifre
05-06-2010 6:00 PM


Re: First Cause
Go f*** your mother.
And here I was reconsidering "robins wouldn't eff with 'em."

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by onifre, posted 05-06-2010 6:00 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 05-06-2010 7:40 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 115 of 158 (559124)
05-06-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by lyx2no
05-06-2010 7:07 PM


Re: First Cause
And here I was reconsidering "robins wouldn't eff with 'em."
Maybe I should have reconsidered using such harsh language too... naaaaa.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by lyx2no, posted 05-06-2010 7:07 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
DarkMatter
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 4
From: Phoenix, Az
Joined: 05-01-2010


Message 116 of 158 (559174)
05-07-2010 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by DPowell
05-06-2010 2:06 PM


Re: First Cause
DPowell writes:
The First Law of Thermodynamics has been overturned in the nuclear age. The consensus is that, in fact, matter can be destroyed.
First; I said energy not matter when I spoke of The First Law of Thermodynamics.
Second; Matter is not destroyed, it is just converted to energy. And energy and matter are just different forms of the same thing . Have you ever heard of Einstein's famous, E = mc2 ?
Besides you said; Try to name something in your world/life that is not directly/indirectly caused by something(s). And Not; Try to name something that in your world/life that is not directly/indirectly destroyed by something(s)
So my original point remains.
Edited by DarkMatter, : No reason given.
Edited by DarkMatter, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:06 PM DPowell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by DPowell, posted 10-06-2010 11:32 PM DarkMatter has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 158 (559185)
05-07-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by DPowell
05-06-2010 2:12 PM


Re: First Cause
And your empirical evidence against the existence of God was...? Please play by your own rules.
If something doesn't exist you cannot prove it does not exist because of the law of non-contradiction. It is impossible to empirically disprove a negative using positive means, meaning something like God is neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
Therefore the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim, which in this particular case would be you.
But let me spare you all the suspense and just say that there is no known way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Even in the bible it says you must believe by faith, does it not? There is no empirical evidence. If such a being exists it is only revealed on a personal level and that cannot be proven to others unless they experience God. Make sense?

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:12 PM DPowell has seen this message but not replied

  
DarkMatter
Junior Member (Idle past 5053 days)
Posts: 4
From: Phoenix, Az
Joined: 05-01-2010


Message 118 of 158 (559199)
05-07-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by DPowell
05-06-2010 2:12 PM


Re: First Cause
DPowell writes:
And your empirical evidence against the existence of God was...? Please play by your own rules.
Here let us turn that around: and your empirical evidence against the existence of Thor was....?
It is not up to anybody provide evidence against the claim that there is a God. Sure there can be a God or Gods. Just like there may be teapot orbiting VY Canis Majoris. However because there is always a chance does not mean that somebody needs to provide any empirical evidence against the existence God. It is the job of the person making the claim must provide evidence for their claim.
So if you want somebody to believe in God, then perhaps you should think about providing empirical evidence for that God. Because as it stands. It is really not hard to see how people lack of belief in your God. When the responsibilities of that God according to the Bible are;
1, creating the universe
2, creating the sun/moon
3, creating our planet
4, creating life
5, creating your consciousness (or soul)
6, controlling events including weather, disease, famine, plague
And nothing supernatural is required to explain any of them. So the question is, what is God's job? So it is not hard to see how anybody could lack of belief in God when God is not required to explain what is above. And if God is not needed to explain them. Then why should anybody believe?
Edited by DarkMatter, : Changed a word that was used.
Edited by DarkMatter, : Had to change a word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by DPowell, posted 05-06-2010 2:12 PM DPowell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by DPowell, posted 10-04-2010 11:48 PM DarkMatter has not replied

  
AdminSlev
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 03-28-2010


(1)
Message 119 of 158 (559214)
05-07-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by onifre
05-06-2010 6:00 PM


Re: First Cause
Hi Onifre,
This is totally innapropriate language and you should know way better. I am very tempted into giving a 24h suspension on this.
AbE. I think just a warning should be sufficient for this time. If you want to discuss this you can PM me
Edited by AdminSlev, : No reason given.

- EvC Administrator -
Understanding through Knowledge and Discussion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by onifre, posted 05-06-2010 6:00 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by onifre, posted 05-07-2010 6:48 PM AdminSlev has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 120 of 158 (559228)
05-07-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by AdminSlev
05-07-2010 4:09 PM


Re: First Cause
This is totally innapropriate language and you should know way better.
I didn't think language was an issue on this site, and I avoided attacking him personally. He suggested I go do something so, I suggested he go do something.
My bad though, I knew I'd get told something for it.
I think just a warning should be sufficient for this time. If you want to discuss this you can PM me
No worries, its all good.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by AdminSlev, posted 05-07-2010 4:09 PM AdminSlev has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024