|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,480 Year: 3,737/9,624 Month: 608/974 Week: 221/276 Day: 61/34 Hour: 4/3 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: If that which you are citing as evidence can never ever be demonstrated to lead to conclusions that can be verified then on what basis do you think this form of "evidence" is remotely capable of leading to conclusions that are ever going to be correct? But that is true about any of our views concerning God, god, gods or lack of God, god or gods. Let's just look at a living cell. It is incredibly complex. It appears, ( a subjective term), to be intelligently constructed. Why does it exist at all and why has it taken the form it has? This is a very different question than asking how it was formed. As I have said before, we have come to different conclusions based on essentially the same information. The point being I can ask you the very same question that you have asked me in the quote above. It applies equally to both of us.
Straggler writes: And you would be in extensive company. Humans have attributed god(s) as the cause of just about every phenomenon that has seemed mysterious and puzzling to them at one time or another. But in how many cases have these subjectively derived conclusions been correct. In how many cases have these subjectively derived conclusions regarding godly causes been wrong? The sort of evidence you are advocating has a 100% failure record! That isn't correct. I can just as easily say that the sort of evidence I am suggesting has been 100% correct, and that your view has been 100% wrong. Remember again, that we are only talking about the "subjective evidence of gods", and not about any particular god(s). Neither of us are able to empirically prove that our subjective views are correct.
Straggler writes: But we can examine the evidence that suggests that humans have a deep proclivity to invoke godly causes on the basis of subjective evidence when in fact there is no godly cause. I agree. But so what? It seems to me that if a god or gods exist then that is what we should expect. I view science to be a natural theology, and that it is one of the tools that we have been inspired with to learn more about God and His creation. It is a tool that we can use to correct our theology as our understanding of God continues to evolve.
Straggler writes: The fact that we exist leads to questions that can be investigated. But I wouldn't call our existence evidence in and of itself of a particular conceivable cause. How can the same thing qualify as evidence for a whole raft of mutually exclusive alternatives? Fair enough. How about then instead of evidence we call it a question to be answered. It goes back to - "why is there something instead of nothing". Do you think that science on its own can ever answer that? (Remember, I don't mean how something happened but why it happened.)
Straggler writes: Sure. But the point is that not all evidence is equally valid and as a result not all beliefs are equally evidentially supported. We have good evidential reasons to consider some beliefs as more likely to be correct than others. I agree, but we are talking about subjective evidence for which we have come to different conclusions with both of us believing that the subjective evidence strongly supports our different conclusions. I think that the subjective evidence for the idea that the living cell had an intelligent origin is far stronger than that it just happened by random chance. I assume you would disagree but I can't come back with any objective evidence to support my subjective belief.
Straggler writes: And beliefs that are based on things like human imagination are very very unlikely to be correct. Yet another subjective POV.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the concept of relativity start out as an idea of Einstein’s imagination which he later proved true empirically. Same thing for Newton and others. When human imagination leads us to our concepts of god(s) it can't be verified empirically but it can be to a degree, over time, verified experientially. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: I was thinking of starting a thread on that, would anyone be interested? I'd participate but I think that it could be done within this thread as we are talking about subjective evidence and I don't think, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong", that we can go outside of that in the discussion. Essentially, as I see it, any objective evidence has to be dealt with subjectively in order to propose any answer that we might come up with. However, there may be merit in having this as a separate thread, I'm not sure.
Dr Adequate writes: (1) God would not constitute an explanation, since God counts as something. Not really. I think that when the question it asks it is referring to our material world. Why do we exist - why do atoms exist - why does the universe exist - why does sentience or wisdom exist etc. The term "something" does not IMHO refer to anything that might or might not exist outside of time, space and matter.
Dr Adequate writes: (2) If anything constituted an explanation then the existence of everything was contingent on that thing, then that thing would stand in need of an explanation, and so wouldn't be the answer we were looking for. Yes and no. In saying this you are ruling out any explanation that includes a pre-existent intelligence making the whole discussion moot. Also in saying that you are limiting any pre-existent intelligence to something that experiences "change" in the same way, and the same order as we do.
Dr Adequate writes: (3) Any attempt to prove a priori that there should be something rather than nothing would necessarily involve proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-inconsistent. Which it isn't. It is the same thing as trying to wrap our minds around the concept of infinity.
Dr Adequate writes: (4) It beats the heck out of me. It's not so hard. In the beginning, God........ Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: In other words you assume a special meaning that is awfully convenient to you - and seems to have nothing else to recommend it. Any reason to think that "something" doesn't just mean "something" ? I guess it all depends on how you want to phrase the discussion. Yes I agree that if god(s) exist it constitutes something, in somewhat the same way that wisdom constitutes something. I think that essentially the discussion then is, "does some intelligent something exist outside of our material world that is responsible for our existence".
PaulK writes: I have no idea how you come to such a reading. I understand Dr A as saying that if I am going to suggest that we exist as the result of some external intelligence that I also have to account for the creation of that intelligence. All I'm saying is that in that question he presupposes that this creative intelligence would have to experience change, (what we call time), in the same way that we do.
PaulK writes:
I agree it is special pleading. If I can't evoke a creator without having to answer for the creation of the creator then I have nothing to offer. When asked the question all I can honestly say is I don't know. The only possible partial answer is that the time that we experience is part of this creation and so we would thus require an intelligence outside of our 4D universe to be its creator. It seems that your argument is based on special pleading - exempting God from the requirement for explanation by choosing idisyncratic definitions and complaining that expecting such an explanation is equivalent to ruling out the possibility of God a priori. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: The whole "chance" thing is a complete misapprehension which is beyond the scope of this thread. I have yet to figure out what word to use that keeps everyone happy. Maybe just non-intelligent origins. How is that?
Straggler writes: If this were true anyone could have "imagined" relativity. Einstein was a highly trained physicist whose knowledge combined with an intuitive grasp of the underlying logic of physical reality has been matched by few others. Newton and maybe Feynamn spring to mind as possible equals in this respect. So - No - relativity is not the result of subjective evidence. It is the result of scientific knowledge combined with deep insight, logic and then verifiable conclusions as per the scientific method.
This may be semantics but Einstein took what he knew and with his imagination envisaged a reality that went beyond Newton's deterministic world. He then proceeded to verify empirically the idea that he had come up with through his imagination. I'm just saying that we do the same thing with our understading of god(s) but we don't have the luxury of being able to prove our thoughts empirically. Scientists come up with different theories which prove to be wrong. Theisists come up with ideas that are also wrong with the difference again being that we can't prove it. My favourite theologian N T Wright often says in his talks that about a third of what he says is going to be incorrect with the problem being he doesn't know which third it is.
Straggler writes: That humans are deeply prone to inventing gods for wholly human reasons that have nothing to do with the actual existence of gods is not a conclusion based on subjective evidence. Amen. Couldn't agree more. We keep trying to create god in our own image for our own ends. We use to have a sign on the fridge that said: "most people want to serve God but only in an advisory capacity". IMHO we see a good example of that in the OT where they keep trying tyo turn Yahweh into a god that will keep them supernatural stregth militarily, or essentially a god thatgives them earthly power.
Straggler writes: That god(s) actually exist is a conclusion essentially derived from nothing more than treating deep conviction as a form of evidence. I don't see it that way. I see it as trying to understand the "empircal fact" that we exist and for what if any purpose.
Straggler writes: Not at all. I am citing empirical evidence and we can demonstrate that empirical evidence leads to reliable conclusions. Can you demonstrate that the subjective evidence you are citing in favour of god leads to reliable conclusions? Can you demonstrate that the subjective evidence you are citing in favour of the non-existence of a creative intelligence that is fundamental to our existence, (does that work for you ) leads to reliable conclusions?
GDR writes:
That isn't correct. I can just as easily say that the sort of evidence I am suggesting has been 100% correct, and that your view has been 100% wrong.
Straggler writes: Really? On what basis? On the basis that neither of us can prove whether we are right or not.
Straggler writes: If this is true you should be able to give an example of subjective evidence of gods which is demonstrably correct. That we exist and can contemplate the existence of god(s).
Straggler writes: Meanwhile I can cite numerous examples of subjective evidence of gods which has been found to be entirely misleading and utterly worthless as a form of evidence. I don't buy into the "God of the Gaps" argument either. Also, as I said, I believe in God that is constant but I also believe that our understanding of God continues to evolve.
Straggler writes:
The evidence remains the same. It is our subjective views on how to interpret the evidence which is at odds.
How can it be evidence for two things which contradict each other? Straggler writes: Nothing can answer that including God. If God exists he will be sitting there wondering why it is he exists rather than nothing. How could it be otherwise? Really well put. Maybe He does, but so what. (I know, "turtles all the way up". ) If He created us then does it really matter how He came into existence. The answer though is unknowable and any answer is only a wild guess at best. My own guess is that eternal life involves the ability to move around in time the way we move around in space. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: If the ultimate question is - "Why is there something rather than nothing?" wouldn't God himself have to ask that same question? I did the best I could with that in my last post. (Message 60) As I've said before - when I get to the next life I'm definitely going to all the lectures. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: Do you mean that God is an abstract entity ? That doesn't seem to fit. I agree it's far from a perfect comparison. My only point is that both exist, IMHO, as something that can't be observed by human senses.
PaulK writes: Well that isn't the question "why is there something rather than nothing", nor even a potential answer to it. It isn't even the question "is there a God" since it might be the case that lesser, natural, intelligences could take actions that would result in the existence of a new universe. OK, fair enough but all I'm trying to do is frame the question in a way that satisfies you. Instead of just critiquing what I say, why don't you tell me how you would frame the question?
PaulK writes: Your "understanding" seems to bear no resemblance to anything Dr. A. said. Indeed I would suggest that it would be much fairer to say that the whole idea of an "intelligence" and the act of "creation" presuppose that. Thus if such an idea is to be found anywhere in this discussion, it is inherent in your position. Well I think I did understand what Dr. A was saying, but I do agree with that last statement.
PaulK writes: In short you have NO answer to the question of "why is there something rather than nothing", without reinterpreting the question to allow special pleading that favours the answer you want to give. Under those circumstances I have to say that I find it intellectually dishonest of you to raise the question as if you had a genuine answer. It depends on what constitutes an answer. There is no answer to the question that can be shown to be true empirically. We can only offer our subjective opinions. I stated the answer to the question is objectively unknowable but I did offer a possible explanation that I have come to subjectively that you seem to reject because there is no objective evidence for it. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: Well, no you DON'T have an answer to the actual question of why there is something rather than nothing, and you admit as much. Indeed, the whole point of reinterpreting the question in your idiosyncratic way is to avoid having to give a genuine answer. Part of the problem is that IMHO you see this as a debate whereas I enjoy a discussion like I was having with Straggler. I'll go with this then. "Why is there something instead of nothing". Because there is/was a creative intelligence as a prime mover. I think that is the most reasonable answer because IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that intelligence can evolve from a non-intelligent source. I think that is the most reasonable answer because IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that love and altruism can evolve from a non-loving, non-altruistic source. I think that is the most reasonable answer because a living cell is an incredibly complex thing and is IMHO highly unlikely to have come into existence without prior wisdom and creativity. That is my subjective view. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: Firstly - The idea that anyone scientific, especially Einstein himself, would describe his imaginings as "evidence" is preposterous. As much as anything Einstein's insight was to fore-go subjective notions of common sense and follow the math to wherever it led. This approach, based on the objectivity of mathematics, has yielded numerous subsequent results. From the discovery of anti-matter as predicted by Dirac to black holes and Hawking radiation. The idea that conclusions of God's existence based on subjective "evidence" are are remotely equivalent to mathematical extrapolations of known results is completely unfounded. I obviously didn't put it well. My only point is that the idea of relativity first occurred in Einstein's imagination which prompted him to prove the theory empirically/mathematically. I am not citing that as evidence. My only point is that human imagination can provide useful information, and I further suggest that human imagination might be a way that a god(s) could connect with us. As Robert Wright points out our concept of god(s) is evolving which could be construed as subjective evidence that a god(s) working through human imagination is over time refining our understanding of him and his desires for us.
Strggler writes: That humans are deeply prone to invoking supernatural entities to explain various phenomenon is empirically and reliably evidenced. That god(s) actually exist is entirely un-evidenced. Or poorly evidenced at best. I still contend that it is strongly evidenced as I pointed out earlier in my comments on intelligence, altruism and complexity. I continue to maintain that the idea that our existence is due to a pre-existent intelligence is more reasonable than any other proposal. However, again that is just my subjective POV.
Straggler writes: No. The subjective evidence you cite in favour of gods is demonstrably unreliable as compared to the evidence that suggests that humans can and will invoke supernatural answers to seemingly inexplicable questions. I don't see the two positions as being at odds. I agree that people very frequently erroneously invoke supernatural answers to inexplicable questions, but so what. That doesn't do anything to refute the idea that there is a prime mover responsible for our existence.
Straggler writes: Not all forms of evidence are equally valid and thus not all conclusions are equally valid. Who could possibly disagree with that, and that being true then you will have obviously come around to my POV. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: Firstly - Not really. What Einstein did to produce relativity was take to it's logical conclusion the common-sense-defying idea that the speed of light really is constant in the way that the mathematics of Maxwell's equations suggest it is. I would agree with that completely, (except I think you meant isn't and not is), but that sure sounds like he imagined it to me.
Straggler writes: Secondly - The idea that the evidence on which Einstein developed relativity is remotely comparable to subjective evidence of gods is just utterly misfounded. Absolutely. I don't think I implied that anywhere but if I did I didn't intend to.
Straggler writes: And all those humans who throughout the ages have invoked now dismissed supernatural causes to seemingly otherwise inexplicable phenomena before you felt the same. Why do you think your reasoning or subjective evidence is any more reliable than theirs? The genuinely reliable evidence here strongly favours the idea that your conclusions are similar in nature to theirs.
I think that it is like science in the sense that our understanding of the subject evolves. Of course science evolves empirically whereas theology evolves, in my view, subjectively through inspiration, revelation and cultural understanding. Robert Wright points out in his book that our understanding or picture of god(s) has evolved although he would say that it is mostly if not all cultural. I have no doubt about the fact that some things I believe are wrong. My views have continued to evolve over the years and presumably will continue to do so. Essentially then, I think my views of a deity are more likely to be correct than those held centuries earlier as I have the acquired knowledge and wisdom of all the generations in between to build on. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: But doesn't that built-on knowledge strongly suggest that invoking supernatural causes to observable phenomenon is a human trait that has absolutely nothing to do with the real cause of observable phenomenon? No I don't actually. I agree that it does seem to be an integral part of human nature to seek the divine, however, in a sense I think that this could be construed as evidence that the divine does exist but obviously that evidence isn't strong. I also think that as our knowledge of the divine has evolved we can see the direction it has taken. Initially the god(s) were seen primarily as allies in the very human search for power over other nations and the environment. Over time our understanding of god(s) has been that our god(s) desire that we should consider the needs of others, even if it is a detriment to our own self interest. Sure, our religions get twisted this way and that so that the message of unselfish love gets lost altogether. Remember however, the point I'm making is that our understanding is evolving, and I suggest will continue to evolve, so that in the future the concept that god(s) desires a world that is characterized by kindness, justice and humility will be more and more the norm precipitating a parallel change in human action and thought. IMHO we continue to evolve closer and closer to the heart and mind of God. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: This is not a million miles away from the sort of conclusion Robert Wright suggests as viable in The Evolution of God. So I get where you are coming from. But this approach does seem to have one fatal flaw. It seems that you have to first assume that God exists before the evidence fits the proposition. That is why I started the statement with "IMHO". I agree it is my subjective opinion. However if we come to the conclusion that our views of a non-existent god(s) are evolving then that assumes that god(s) doesn't exist before the evidence fits the proposition. Either assumption is subjective and non-verifiable.
Straggler writes: But just because modern theists largely restrict themselves to making unfalsifiable claims on the basis of subjective evidence of gods doesn't mean there isn't a similar track record to consider. Every single testable claim humanity has ever made about gods on the basis of subjective evidence has been wrong. And we are talking about a lot of claims. All wrong. With this track record doesn't it take faith to conclude that subjective evidence of gods has any validity at all?
First off I think that the odds are that many testable claims have worked out. I would assume this was true whether god(s) existed or not. Actually I don't see that being of any importance, and don't forget we are only going as far as theism or even deism in this thread. And yes, I agree that is does take faith to conclude that the subjective evidence for god(s) has validity. I would add though, that IMHO it takes a lot more faith to consider the world we live in and subjectively believe that there is no intelligent prime mover. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: But only in the context of religion and god could it be advocated that the persistent failure of humanity to be right about something is indicative that we are on the path to truth about that something. This thread is simply about subjective evidence as it applies to the existence or non-existence of god(s).. The jury is still out on who was right and who was wrong. There are intelligent people on both sides of the argument. It is not about the specifics of god(s).
Straggler writes: But I haven't just assumed that gods don't exist in a way that is equivalent to the way that your position just assumes that they do. The conclusion that humans can and do invent gods is highly objectively evidenced. That humans are prone to believing in the existence of these invented entities is also highly objectively evidenced. There is also objective evidence pertaining to the psychological reasons humans exhibit this behaviour. So the conclusion that gods are imagined rather than real is not just a subjective assumption at all.
In a way it isn't that people invent god(s). The problem is that people ascribe attributes to god(s) to suit their own purposes. Also, I have no problem with the idea that people turn to god(s) for physiological reasons but that tells us nothing about whether he/she/it/they exist or not. Sure people ascribe false attributes that they imagine to god(s). That says absolutely nothing about the subjective view about the actual existence of god(s).
Straggler writes: No one can prove or disprove the existence of God but that doesn't mean all conclusions about God are based on equally subjective evidence. I think this a commonly held theistic misapprehension. Absolutely except that I don't think it is a commonly held view.
Straggler writes: Do you have any examples of the sort of evidence used to conclude that God exists leading to demonstrably reliable conclusions? You've changed the subject. You were talking about predictions about things like the end of the world by individuals. In answer to your question.....no..... nor should I expect that there would be. But again, do you have any examples of the sort of evidence used to conclude that God doesn't exist leading to demonstrably reliable conclusions?
Straggler writes: No doubt pretty much every human throughout history who has ever ascribed conscious godly intent as the cause of a baffling natural phenomenon thought much the same way you do. And in every case tested to date they were wrong.
Not at all. Lets' take evolution. Darwin asked the question of how species adapted and came up with the theory of evolution. As a result we now know how species adapt and how new species came to be. It tells us nothing about why evolution as a process existed in the first place. This can be said for all natural phenomenons. Was it accomplished by a prime mover or not? We all have our subjective opinions. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: This thread is about the validity (or otherwise) of a particular form of evidence. If the track record of a particular form of evidence isn't the basis upon which it's validity must be judged I am absolutely baffled as to what is? I'll try again. I'm obviously not explaining myself well. I don't see this as being about God in the image of Christ, God of the Torah, God of the Qu'ran, Roman gods, Greek gods, militaristic gods, peaceful gods or any specific vision of god(s). This is from your OP.
Straggler writes: I would like to ask the following: 1) What subjective evidence in favour of the existence of gods is there? Can someone provide some actual examples of this form of evidence? 2) Is subjective evidence limited to entities that can be empirically detected or not? 3) On what basis (aside from belief) is the cause of these subjective experiences attributed to supernatural entities rather than to fluctuations in the matrix, undetectable telepathic aliens manipulating our minds or any other conceivable cause of such things? 4) Is belief itself a form of evidence on which we can justify belief?
I see the questions to be about subjective evidence for a god(s) regardless of any particular names, qualities or attributes we might assign to them/him/her/it. So we you say that we have often been wrong about god(s) I'd say that I agree but that has nothing to say about whether one or more actually exist or not. Using a term like prime mover was just an attempt to try and help make that point. Do I understand the questions in your OP as you intended? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes:
But you are just describing how beautifully the system works. It just has to occur to you that something that works so well has at least the appearance of being designed. Frankly to think that something as beautiful as that can have come about from a non-intelligent source stretches belief further than I can go. Genes that propogate do propogate and genes that don't propagate don't propagate. A particular gene propagates better because it allows it's owner to better survive and reproduce. Ultimately there is nothing more to this than just maths. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: But the appearance of design is absolutely known as a fact to be fundamentally misleading. Every proponent of every supernatural answer to everything from the regularity of planetary motions to the existence of the eye has made this same mistake regarding the appearance of design in nature. I'm not suggesting that god(s) hold the planets in place. I know - gravity does. I think that it is John Lennox who I got this analogy from. (I wouldn't want to take all the credit. ) We can take a cake and break it all down to find all of the ingredients, maybe even the length of time it took to bake etc but that isn't going to tell us why or by whom the cake was baked in the first place. The point is once again that science tells us how something works, it can even sometimes tell us how it came to be but it does not tell us anything about why it came to be or who/what might have caused it to be.
Straggler writes: Do you find it beautiful because you have evolved in such a way as to find it awe inspiring? Or because there really is a supernatural cause of all this that is genuinely mystical and wonderful in the way that you evdently believe to be the case? There is only one genuinely evidenced answer to that question........
Yes, I find the evolutionary system inspiring designed or not. As a theist I am in awe of the intelligence which spawned it. There is no objective evidence to conclude whether such an intelligence exists opr not. There is only subjective evidence which is..... subjective. AbE gotta run. Get back to you later to explain your various errors Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
