Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
21 online now:
AZPaul3, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,649 Year: 16,685/19,786 Month: 810/2,598 Week: 56/251 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4504
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 1306 of 1677 (846293)
01-02-2019 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1298 by 1.61803
01-02-2019 11:47 AM


I have given up on trying to reconcile God with reality. I choose to believe in God at times because it comforts me. (42) why not! I have nothing but a fragile faith and arbitrary absurdity to wash it down with.

Then come over to the dark side. Let reality prevail. For those times you need comfort, get a dog. Arbitrary Absurdity? Is that anything like Everclear?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1298 by 1.61803, posted 01-02-2019 11:47 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1308 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-02-2019 7:01 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1310 by 1.61803, posted 01-03-2019 10:46 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 1307 of 1677 (846294)
01-02-2019 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1294 by Tangle
12-31-2018 3:59 PM


Why is it necessary to create a world so full of suffering in orde to produce that?

It might be that perfect worlds don't work, there was an experiment where they made the perfect rat habitat with unlimited food and water, even though the habitat could easily house 1000nds, after an initial exponential growth to about 600 the population began to fall drastically till they all died out.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1294 by Tangle, posted 12-31-2018 3:59 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12792
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1308 of 1677 (846295)
01-02-2019 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1306 by AZPaul3
01-02-2019 5:28 PM


A Spirited Occasion
Then come over to the dark side. Let reality prevail.
Reality prevails no matter which side you decide to join. It takes more guts to believe in invisible spirits than it does to drink everclear.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by AZPaul3, posted 01-02-2019 5:28 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1309 by Percy, posted 01-02-2019 8:57 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1309 of 1677 (846297)
01-02-2019 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1308 by Thugpreacha
01-02-2019 7:01 PM


Re: A Spirited Occasion
Phat writes:

Then come over to the dark side. Let reality prevail.

Reality prevails no matter which side you decide to join.

Yes, exactly, reality does prevail. The choice is between reality, which has evidence, and fantasy, which doesn't. Since reality always prevails, why would anyone choose fantasy?

It's understood in this thread that evidence is required, so those choosing fantasy take whatever is handy and call it evidence. If it's hobbits you believe in, you call Tolkein's books evidence. If it's God and Jesus you believe in, you call the Bible evidence.

In courtrooms lawyers are frequently called upon to establish a chain of evidence, meaning they produce evidence and testimony tracking the crime evidence from where it was gathered at the crime scene to how it was transported to headquarters and then to the evidence locker and then from the evidence locker to the courtroom. Science performs an analog of the same idea of a chain of evidence when it establishes theory. Religionists must also do the same thing, but none ever has.

Ancient Egyptians believed as fervently in Ra as you believe in God. Their beliefs made as much sense to them as yours do to you, but you think the ancient Egyptions wrong. If they were still around they would think you as wrong as you think them. So let's say they were still around - how would you determine who's right?

It's the same question for all the modern religions. Between all the religions in GDR's image (excluding Unitarianism - it's just a branch of Christianity, like Mormonism), how do you determine which is right: Christianity, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahá'í Faith, Islam, Judaism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, spirituality, or any of dozens and dozens of more minor religions?

Your earlier answer of which is the most persuasive (or which has the most persuasive advocates) is the way people get fooled and cheated. The correct approach is to assess which has the most tightly bound chain of evidence. At present no religion has persuasive evidence, or any real evidence at all. That's why they call it faith and not reality.

It takes more guts to believe in invisible spirits than it does to drink everclear.

It only takes more guts to believe in invisible spirits if you think they're going to catch you when you jump off the building. If you only believe the invisible spirits are going to provide eternal salvation, and only after you die, then it takes no guts at all, unless you mean enduring ridicule.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1308 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-02-2019 7:01 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2899
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1310 of 1677 (846305)
01-03-2019 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1306 by AZPaul3
01-02-2019 5:28 PM


Everclear
Hi AZPaul,

I'd say I am already there.
(My background) I am what folks call a cultural Catholic.
I do not NEED religion to provide certainty because I am smart enough to know that is a bunch of hooey. I do however feel that despite the universe being arbitrary and absurd we all must on some level go on with our lives in the face of such nihilistic thoughts. Some commit suicide, some drink or do drugs as a distraction. Some lead a hedonistic, epicurean life, some folks simply choose not the think about it or become deluded by religion. Existence/universe/reality/ is ironic and imo, if we embrace that then the pressure is kind of off, we can be honest about it and have a laugh. Stop taking shit so seriously and get on with living these moments. God knows I try.
Everclear will work but not a panacea.
EvC has shaped alot of how I view things today and is the reason I still keep reading and posting on here. And you AZPaul are one of the most knowlegeable people I have read when it comes to the bible/scriptures/religions.

I do not think humans will ever have a certain answer about our existence but I do agree with Shakespeare:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by AZPaul3, posted 01-02-2019 5:28 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4960
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1311 of 1677 (846655)
01-09-2019 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1299 by ringo
01-02-2019 2:11 PM


ringo writes:

hat still doesn't answer the question. Time isn't really relevant. If you can ask why the chemicals exist, it's just as valid to ask why God exists.

I agree.
ringo writes:

But you are the one who's introducing an infinite regression. I'm perfectly willing to stop at chemicals that "just exist". You are the one who wants to put God before the chemicals. I'm just pointing out that that introduces the infinite regression. Where did the God come from? And wherever He came from, where did the "wherever" come from? Etc.
If we're going to stop somewhere, we might as well stop at something that actually exists - i.e. chemicals.

There is no reason to stop at chemicals. The infinite regression argument can be used to refute either position. I don't see it as an argument for either position is my point.

I do however see the anthropic principle as pointing towards intelligent origins.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1299 by ringo, posted 01-02-2019 2:11 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1312 by Percy, posted 01-09-2019 9:10 PM GDR has responded
 Message 1315 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-10-2019 3:38 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 1320 by ringo, posted 01-10-2019 11:00 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1312 of 1677 (846659)
01-09-2019 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1311 by GDR
01-09-2019 8:33 PM


GDR writes:

ringo writes:

If we're going to stop somewhere, we might as well stop at something that actually exists - i.e. chemicals.

There is no reason to stop at chemicals.

Ringo just gave you a very good reason, one you're just ignoring - chemicals actually exist. You ignore answers a lot and instead respond with some equivalent of "I'm just sticking with what I already said."

Although I suppose one could stop at chemicals, there is a regression from that point. We know where chemicals come from - they form by combining elements. And we know where elements come from - they're cooked in the furnaces of stars and in the explosions of nova and supernova. And we know where stars come from - they condense from interstellar gas clouds. And we know where the interstellar gas clouds come from - they have two sources, either primordial very light elements left over from the Big Bang (hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium) or material spewed into space by nova and supernova, the first stars forming from the primordial elements. And we know where the primordial elements came from - they condensed out of a superhot quark-gluon plasma. It gets more speculative before that so I'll just say that the various hypotheses are based upon evidence, unlike any of your ideas.

The infinite regression argument can be used to refute either position. I don't see it as an argument for either position is my point.

As I've told you before, science not only does not see an infinite regression as a necessity, it doesn't even necessarily see it as meaningful since time possibly didn't exist until the Big Bang.

I do however see the anthropic principle as pointing towards intelligent origins.

You, on the other hand, absolutely have the problem of an infinite regression.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by GDR, posted 01-09-2019 8:33 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1313 by GDR, posted 01-10-2019 2:18 AM Percy has responded
 Message 1314 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-10-2019 3:32 AM Percy has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4960
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1313 of 1677 (846663)
01-10-2019 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1312 by Percy
01-09-2019 9:10 PM


Percy writes:

Ringo just gave you a very good reason, one you're just ignoring - chemicals actually exist. You ignore answers a lot and instead respond with some equivalent of "I'm just sticking with what I already said."

Although I suppose one could stop at chemicals, there is a regression from that point. We know where chemicals come from - they form by combining elements. And we know where elements come from - they're cooked in the furnaces of stars and in the explosions of nova and supernova. And we know where stars come from - they condense from interstellar gas clouds. And we know where the interstellar gas clouds come from - they have two sources, either primordial very light elements left over from the Big Bang (hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium) or material spewed into space by nova and supernova, the first stars forming from the primordial elements. And we know where the primordial elements came from - they condensed out of a superhot quark-gluon plasma. It gets more speculative before that so I'll just say that the various hypotheses are based upon evidence, unlike any of your ideas.

You make my point. It requires process after process after process. Where did the first process come from? It's turtles all the way down.

We form our own subjective opinions about whether or not there is an intelligent root cause or not.

Percy writes:

As I've told you before, science not only does not see an infinite regression as a necessity, it doesn't even necessarily see it as meaningful since time possibly didn't exist until the Big Bang.

But then the same criteria can be used for God. There is no requirement then to have a creator for God as it isn't meaningful as time possibly didn't exist before the Big Bang.

Percy writes:

You, on the other hand, absolutely have the problem of an infinite regression.

No more than a materialist.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1312 by Percy, posted 01-09-2019 9:10 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1317 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2019 5:05 AM GDR has responded
 Message 1318 by Percy, posted 01-10-2019 9:17 AM GDR has responded

    
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12792
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1314 of 1677 (846664)
01-10-2019 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1312 by Percy
01-09-2019 9:10 PM


The Point Of Evidence Going Back
Percy writes:

Although I suppose one could stop at chemicals, there is a regression from that point. We know where chemicals come from - they form by combining elements. And we know where elements come from - they're cooked in the furnaces of stars and in the explosions of nova and supernova. And we know where stars come from - they condense from interstellar gas clouds. And we know where the interstellar gas clouds come from - they have two sources, either primordial very light elements left over from the Big Bang (hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium) or material spewed into space by nova and supernova, the first stars forming from the primordial elements. And we know where the primordial elements came from - they condensed out of a superhot quark-gluon plasma. It gets more speculative before that so I'll just say that the various hypotheses are based upon evidence, unlike any of your ideas.

The problem, as I see it, is that one is following a trail of math and physics to arrive at the farthest regression that we can measure. Granted we know with reasonable certainty that math and physics work and they work very well for what they show us. Keep in mind, however, that you are attempting to provide evidence for a time long before humanity was even around. Thus the source of confirmation, our minds, and reasoning, did not even exist at the time described by the math. Apologists often say that one reason that humans don't like thinking/imagining an infinite eternal God is partially because they have no way to put such a concept in a box, or problem, or theory. God cannot be quantified nor understood...nay not even measured. based on this simple math logic, God is not proven to exist. The maths provide us assurance as well as evidence. They allow us to feel certain of our calculations...een though we are calculating a reality that predated our minds. Of course, time is finite. Anything that can be quantified takes time to quantify. Without time, there could be no proof...for no individual, computer, or thesis could even be compiled. In conclusion, I would say that at best, evidenced points of regression are comforting, whereas eternal, abstract, unquantifiable points give humans an uneasy feeling.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1312 by Percy, posted 01-09-2019 9:10 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1324 by Percy, posted 01-10-2019 9:22 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12792
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1315 of 1677 (846665)
01-10-2019 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1311 by GDR
01-09-2019 8:33 PM


ringo writes:

But you are the one who's introducing an infinite regression. I'm perfectly willing to stop at chemicals that "just exist". You are the one who wants to put God before the chemicals. I'm just pointing out that that introduces the infinite regression. Where did the God come from? And wherever He came from, where did the "wherever" come from? Etc.
If we're going to stop somewhere, we might as well stop at something that actually exists -

In other words, something that exists is something quantifiable or measurable according to your definition. It's like dark matter. They had to quantify it somehow before they could say that it existed. Which is why logicians often are atheists. God as a concept is unquantifiable. I always thought that defining the regression as an uncaused first cause eliminated the need to ask what came before. And its sorta silly for humans, existing so late on the scale, to attempt to quantify infinity.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by GDR, posted 01-09-2019 8:33 PM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1316 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2019 4:55 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
 Message 1321 by ringo, posted 01-10-2019 11:07 AM Thugpreacha has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1316 of 1677 (846667)
01-10-2019 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1315 by Thugpreacha
01-10-2019 3:38 AM


Phat writes:

I always thought that defining the regression as an uncaused first cause eliminated the need to ask what came before.

That's just a linguistic trick. You can't define away the problem by declaring no problem.

And its sorta silly for humans, existing so late on the scale, to attempt to quantify infinity.

Can you explain why?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1315 by Thugpreacha, posted 01-10-2019 3:38 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7067
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 1317 of 1677 (846668)
01-10-2019 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1313 by GDR
01-10-2019 2:18 AM


GDR writes:

It requires process after process after process.

Sure, it's process all the way down.

Where did the first process come from?

We'll let you know when we find out for sure, but at the moment it's probable that it popped into existence without the need for one.

One thing is certain though, if and when we do have the answer, neither you nor I will understand it.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1313 by GDR, posted 01-10-2019 2:18 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1325 by GDR, posted 01-11-2019 2:28 AM Tangle has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1318 of 1677 (846675)
01-10-2019 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1313 by GDR
01-10-2019 2:18 AM


GDR writes:

You make my point. It requires process after process after process. Where did the first process come from? It's turtles all the way down.

You again manage to cram a great deal of misunderstanding into a small number of words, and you say this even though I rebut this view in my very next paragraph. You responded too early. All that paragraph did was provide a more detailed view showing that chemicals are not necessarily the "beginning." But it is the exact wrong conclusion that Ringo's point doesn't hold, because it most certainly does, that the stopping point, if there is one and wherever it is, is something that actually exists, that is, something there is evidence for.

To be more declarative and painfully clear this time, our universe began with the Big Bang. The most widely accepted view is that time began with the Big Bang. We cannot talk about what came before the Big Bang because time did not exist before the Big Bang. Time related words like "before" have no meaning when there is no time. Whatever caused the Big Bang did not happen before the Big Bang because there was no before.

We form our own subjective opinions about whether or not there is an intelligent root cause or not.

On that we agree. Anyone's opinion about an intelligent root cause is subjective and not based upon available evidence.

Percy writes:

As I've told you before, science not only does not see an infinite regression as a necessity, it doesn't even necessarily see it as meaningful since time possibly didn't exist until the Big Bang.

But then the same criteria can be used for God. There is no requirement then to have a creator for God as it isn't meaningful as time possibly didn't exist before the Big Bang.

Why does there need to be a Big Bang in your God scenario? You're already picking and choosing what you believe without evidence. Why, suddenly, are you letting your ideas about God be guided by Big Bang evidence? Does your God exist within time, or is he outside time, and what is your evidence?

There is absolutely evidence for what we are saying about the Big Bang, while there is no evidence for this God you keep speaking of. Tell you what. Let's trade objective evidence for the root cause of the universe one for one. I'll go first with evidence for the Big Bang: the cosmic background radiation at a temperature of 4.2K discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1964, for which they received the Nobel Prize. This is my first item of objective evidence that the Big Bang is real.

Your turn. What's your first piece of objective evidence that God is real.

Percy writes:

You, on the other hand, absolutely have the problem of an infinite regression.

No more than a materialist.

Now materialist is a term of disparagement? If you're not as much a materialist as everyone else then prove it by drinking poison or jumping off a building or stabbing yourself.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1313 by GDR, posted 01-10-2019 2:18 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1319 by Faith, posted 01-10-2019 9:37 AM Percy has responded
 Message 1326 by GDR, posted 01-11-2019 2:52 AM Percy has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32899
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1319 of 1677 (846679)
01-10-2019 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1318 by Percy
01-10-2019 9:17 AM


There is absolutely evidence for what we are saying about the Big Bang, while there is no evidence for this God you keep speaking of.

GDR does unfortunately keep cutting the evidence out from under himself by denying so much of the Bible, but the evidence for the God of Christianity is enormously abundant in sixty six books by at least forty writers over 1500 years all attesting to the same God by direct witness to His miracles and by reports of witness testimony. The evidence is lavishly given.

But it is precisely that evidence you simply reject on the basis of your own prejudice. Thousands of witnesses aren't enough if all you have to do is say it couldn't happen because you believe it couldn't happen just because you believe it couldn't happen. Amazing.

God certainly knew He could inspire the truth to be reported to such a huge extent and silly people would still reject it and make up lies about how it has to be fiction just because they can't imagine it being true. It has nothing of the quality of fiction but God knew you'd deceive yourself about that.

He made sure it all got reported and then asked us simply to believe it as the honest reporting it is. Which is precisely what silly people like you refuse to do. Don't blame us then when our simple belief turns out to reveal the reality of God too late for you to recognize it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1318 by Percy, posted 01-10-2019 9:17 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1333 by Percy, posted 01-12-2019 10:36 AM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1320 of 1677 (846694)
01-10-2019 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1311 by GDR
01-09-2019 8:33 PM


GDR writes:

The infinite regression argument can be used to refute either position.


But science doesn't regress infinitely. It only goes as far as the evidence goes. If there were any turtles, science would only consider the turtles that it can see.

The problem I have with your position is not that your belief fills in the gap beyond the visible turtles. The problem I have is that you pretend your position "makes more sense". It doesn't.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by GDR, posted 01-09-2019 8:33 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019