Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
28 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,381 Year: 22,417/19,786 Month: 980/1,834 Week: 50/430 Day: 5/45 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15674
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 76 of 115 (67198)
11-17-2003 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by grace2u
11-17-2003 5:14 PM


Re: Pardon me but...
If the laws of logic are semantic rules - as I say then they are follow form how we use meaning. That is if we say that something is black we mean that we exclude all states that would be considered non-black. Thus it is the meaning of "it is black" that rules it "it is not black" not some universal rule.

Or in simple the rules are "universal" not because they apply to everything but in that they apply to all our descriptions. Thus they seem to apply everywhere in that they apply to all our statements - no matter where nor when the situation described by those statements is.

Consider wave-particle duality. Does that represent a challenge to logic or a challege to our ability to describe and model the fundamental particles ? I say the latter.

Logic is like algebra - a way of manipulating unknowns to examine their implications. And that is because it deals with semantics.

That is point 1.

On to point 2.

I have already asked you to explain why universal truths should come FROM somewhere, and as yet you have not answered. And indeed as I pointed out it is incoherent to claim that logic in your sense comes from anywhere. And no, I have never stated that any universal truths are conventions. And I would certainly not call a "universal truth" a god. After all it would simply be a statement that corresponded to reality in all times or places. Worshipping a statement seems to be quite insane to me. So your point 2 remains without any serious support.

Finally point 3.

I have to laugh every time I see the phrase "The impossiblity of the contrary". Every time I see it the contrary is eminently possible. Indeed - as in this case - it usually serves in lieu of argument, as if merely declaring something impossible were enough to make it so.

I have already made a case that it is in fact impossible that logic could be contingent, if it were to take the form of universal laws as you propose - in the very post you were replying to.

So you say that logic "reflects the nature of God". But you do not offer any account of how it could come to be the sort of "universal law" you propose. And you cannot since any such account would - as I pointed out - rely on the truth of logic.

So the three points are still not adequately addressed. Indeed none of the main objections I have raised is new to this thread. You may not consider these rebuttals adequate but it is a fact that you have not answered them. Until you can answer them then you have no basis for claimign victory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 5:14 PM grace2u has not yet responded

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 77 of 115 (67206)
11-17-2003 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by grace2u
11-17-2003 5:14 PM


Re: Pardon me but...
grace2u writes:

I can boldly state that the implication ~(~P) = P is true in an absolute(universal and invariant) sense.


No, it is true only in systems in which ~ means "not" and = means "is equal to." Regardless, objective reality doesn't exhibit negation nor does it exhibit equivalency. Those are relations that we abstract from reality. Abstractions are mental constructs. Nowhere in reality will you find (~P). No where in reality will you find "=". Reality just says "A" or it says "B" and then according to how we define those we might relate them with a "=" sign or a ">" sign etc..

grace2u writes:

I have repeatedly shown that the necessary condition of my claims are valid. In other words, if the laws of logic are not laws and they are conventional the universe is irrational.


Correction: you have repeatedly asserted that this is the case, but you've done no showing that I have seen. Why are your assertions true? Because you say so?

grace2u writes:

That the laws of logic are the same everywhere and are unchanging.


I have already shown this to be plainly false. The "laws of logic" are different at the macro scale than the quantum scale.

grace2u writes:

We could postulate that they will at sometime change, but this would be as irrational as saying that matter will suddenly change.


Ummmm.... matter does change. All the time. In fact, permenancy is merely an illusion.

grace2u writes:

crashfrog writes:

Thirdly you need to provide your account of the truth of logic and show that the truth of logic is contingent on the existence of God


From the impossibility of the contrary. This has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Please do direct my attention to this demonstration you claim exists -- I cannot seem to find it anywhere in this thread.

grace2u writes:

I have yet to see any of the points I have made rebutted in any convincing way. Therefore, my claim stands.


Perhaps you could finally answer my question directly: According to you, which system of logic is the universal one? Aristotlean logic? Quantum Logic? Fuzzy Logic? ... ?

Each of those have unique axioms that CANNOT simultaneously hold in a single logical system. Why would this be the case if logic were universal as you've claimed? If logic were universal, we would expect to have a single system capable of expressing all of reality, yet we obviously do not.

Let me ask you another question. If logic were indeed universal, then we would expect that there would exist no statement X such that X is a well-formed statement and yet we can not prove X true or false logically, do you agree? In other words, assuming that logic is universal, absolute and fixed, we would expect that every conceivable statement is theoretically decideably true or false, right? A simple yes or no will suffice. If your answer is no, please explain how logic can be universal, absolute and fixed and yet there exist well-formed statements which it cannot prove true or false.

So what is it? Yes or no.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 5:14 PM grace2u has not yet responded

JustinC
Member (Idle past 3189 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 78 of 115 (67223)
11-17-2003 8:23 PM


Can you explain in a semi-detailed way how presupposing a God would explain the existance universal logic?

JustinC


Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 8:45 PM JustinC has not yet responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 115 (67229)
11-17-2003 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by JustinC
11-17-2003 8:23 PM


Sure. One of the characteristics of this God that is presupposed as well as evidenced is that He is an eternal entity that is the standard of reason(logic) by which we judge all reason or logic by. He has other traits as well, all moral being another one. Because of this, a theist can at least begin to have a rational discussion about this entity or what laws this entitiy might radiate or define since a theists worldview accounts for these truths. The theist can do this while the atheist is left defending the low-ground by denying these absolute truths, when most of humanity(yes, scientists included) would clearly accept them for what rational thought says they are. Atheists then are forced into a more unreasonable position since they can not account for these self evident truths. Note, my argument has not been that they are self-evident, rather I have provided inductive reasoning to demonstrate how these truths can and should be accepted by all clear thinking individuals. So not only are they self-evident, but they can be demonstrated to be valid and reasonable claims. I will respond to the other replies shortly..

Thanks..
"Christe eleison"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by JustinC, posted 11-17-2003 8:23 PM JustinC has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by zephyr, posted 11-17-2003 9:15 PM grace2u has responded
 Message 82 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 9:53 PM grace2u has not yet responded
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2003 2:29 AM grace2u has not yet responded
 Message 96 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 12:43 PM grace2u has responded

zephyr
Member (Idle past 2895 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 80 of 115 (67239)
11-17-2003 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by grace2u
11-17-2003 8:45 PM


What you call moral absolutes are simply things that make everyday human life better. We all know it. Avoiding murder and theft, for example, reduces suffering and pain in society, and reduces stress on the average person. I am aware that it feels better when you have an all-powerful deity to invoke when you preach about these standards, but the emotional satisfaction of a premise has absolutely no value in determining whether it is the truth.

As someone who sees no evidence for the existence of gods in this world, I have struggled with the justification for the moral standards I possess. This in no way compels me to manufacture the existence of someone more powerful or righteous than I, and claim their support for my ideas. Believe me, I would love to, but honesty compels me otherwise. Emotionally speaking, I would somewhat prefer to think there were someone watching over us, a cosmic parent who will set things right in the end. I make my conclusions in spite of my feelings, in spite of how lonely and vulnerable they leave me, and in spite of my wish that total and absolute justice would someday reign over humanity. You, on the other hand, claim absolutes which come from a god as evidence for a god, and fail to recognize that your wishful thinking has led you into untenable circular reasoning.

One final note: an atheist who holds a moral position for the good of humanity alone is more altruistic than someone who does it because they imagine a frightening and all-powerful deity commands them to. That (sorry to disillusion you) leaves the godless heathens holding the high ground over coerced believers. Good luck demonstrating otherwise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 8:45 PM grace2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 11:04 PM zephyr has responded

JustinC
Member (Idle past 3189 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 81 of 115 (67243)
11-17-2003 9:30 PM


quote:
Sure. One of the characteristics of this God that is presupposed as well as evidenced is that He is an eternal entity that is the standard of reason(logic) by which we judge all reason or logic by.

So God explains logic by presupposing that he explains logic? Can you evidence that?

Explain to me how an eternal being can be the standard of logic. What does that mean? Can I be a standard of logic? Can a rock be a standard of logic? Are you saying that he dictates what is logical and illogical?

If this eternal being was different, would "John Jumped and John Didn't Jump" not be a contradiction?

Also, saying that your presuppositions are better because you only presuppose one entity that somehow explains every other presupposition is really no different then saying, "I only presuppose one thing, that the statement "logic exists, morality exists, etc." is true" Is that as valid a presupposition as God?


NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 82 of 115 (67249)
11-17-2003 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by grace2u
11-17-2003 8:45 PM


grace2u writes:

One of the characteristics of this God that is presupposed as well as evidenced is that He is an eternal entity

"as evidenced", how is that evidenced? We don't have any objective evidence that he is there. I don't see how we can know he has been there forever in the past and will be there forever in the future.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 8:45 PM grace2u has not yet responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 115 (67260)
11-17-2003 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by zephyr
11-17-2003 9:15 PM


You are touching on an issue that hasn't been brought up yet so I am addressing it first.
We all know it
How do you suggest that we all know it? Christianity teaches that Christ in His mercy has placed this within us. That is actually an entirely different argument for the existence of God. The argument from morality. The concept that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong.

I am aware that it feels better when you have an all-powerful deity to invoke when you preach about these standards, but the emotional satisfaction of a premise has absolutely no value in determining whether it is the truth

I could not agree more with your statement.

As someone who sees no evidence for the existence of gods in this world
Any unbiased observer would contend that there is at least some evidence to support the claims Christianity makes. Would you not agree? Even if the evidence is not compelling to you, there is some. I would contend that the evidence for outweighs the evidence against, this is probably our point of disagreement.

Believe me, I would love to, but honesty compels me otherwise
I do believe you would, I don't think anyone could deny that the beauty of Christ, or the concepts of His love for creation, are bad concepts.

but honesty compels me otherwise
How so? What is the evidence against? Alleged lack of evidence for the flood( I don't grant this for other reasons, but even if I did...)? fine. I contend that the evidence of morality alone is enough reason to believe. Add in the laws of logic(I have labored this point alone), laws of thought, concepts of justice, love, beauty and any other esoteric concept. What else? There are many other evidences that provide further confirmations of this God. The theology behind Christianity is another. It is believable and it speaks to the core of the problem that has plagued mankind.

I make my conclusions in spite of my feelings, in spite of how lonely and vulnerable they leave me, and in spite of my wish that total and absolute justice would someday reign over humanity
I commend you for your honesty but you must examine where these feelings come from and how can your worldview account for them? I contend that it can not. Atheism can not explain these metaphysical concepts, theism can. They clearly exist, as you are even demonstrating yet again. So when speaking of the metaphysical, if one system can explain the metaphysical in an extremely concise manner, and the other can not even begin to account for them, which is more likely an accurate representation of the system it is trying to describe? Most on this forum claim that science and theism can not coexist. It can. In fact I listed some of the most profound, thoughtful, intelligent and rational scientists ever to have blessed this earth were Christians. Again it is irrelevant ultimately but it does provide evidence that all theists are not babbling fools as some might think. I wrote this on an earlier post in case you missed it:

grace2u writes:


(I will largely be quoting from external resources now-I will provide more information if needed)
Blaise Pascal, who wrote Treatise on the Equilibrium of Liquids, the first systematic theory of hydrostatics. {By the way Pascals wager is largely misunderstood by atheists today --my comment}

Robert Boyle. To Boyle, love of God came first, and everything else second. Science was a means to a higher end: loving God with all one’s heart, soul, strength, and mind. Boyles law named after him.

One of my personal favorites..
Sir Isaac Newton (calculus among other things)
Antony can Leeuwenhoek,Linnaeus,Herschel, the list goes on and on and on.

And now this is your quote:

You, on the other hand, claim absolutes which come from a god as evidence for a god, and fail to recognize that your wishful thinking has led you into untenable circular reasoning

This is not the only argument however. In the same way you use circular reasoning to justify the laws of logic a theist will appear to be circular in justifying theism. Both are presupposed but with evidence. Some things are unprovable in the proper sense. The existence of God is one of them. It is not a mathematical theorem that can be proved or disproved. The evidence must be examined in an unbiased manner. I contend that if one does this, the only rational choice is the belief in God. How can the contrary be possible(God does not exist)? If that were so, these emotions you have among other things can not be explained except for them being electro chemical processes in your brain. It should be self-evident that these concepts are more than that.

BTW, the simple fact that my philisophical system is more appealing does not mean or even imply that it is NOT true. I contend that the requirements atheists place on theists are unreasonable. It should be likened to a judicial case, not proving a scientific theory. The burden of proof is on the theist, however a formal proof should not be the requirement for acceptance.

One final note: an atheist who holds a moral position for the good of humanity alone is more altruistic than someone who does it because they imagine a frightening and all-powerful deity commands them to.
This again proves my point. How can you begin to verify this? This statement does not make sense in an atheist world. In an atheist world, they both would be equally altruistic if I granted every possible thing in your favor. Why do you even sense that if someone does something good for no personal gain, that it is better than if they do it for personal gain? This again, demonstrates my point.

That (sorry to disillusion you) leaves the godless heathens holding the high ground over coerced believers. Good luck demonstrating otherwise
Again, why is this so in your worldview? How can it even begin to give an account?

This discussion provides further evidence that these truths exist within each of us. Did you know that the concepts you are speaking of are concepts Christ taught? I'm sure you also know that Christianity teaches that God has placed these concepts within you. How can atheism account for your implied statement that being unselfish for no reason is better than being unselfish for gain? In either case, you are still acting out a good deed and society should benefit from the acts either one committed independent of the motives involved.

This is another point theist philosophers have made. Atheists borrow from the theist world view even though the concepts borrowed do not make sense within the confines of atheism. While they do this, they deny the realities of the world in which we live. How can this be the high ground?

Thanks for the reply...

"Christe Eleison"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by zephyr, posted 11-17-2003 9:15 PM zephyr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by zephyr, posted 11-18-2003 9:10 PM grace2u has not yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3378 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 84 of 115 (67263)
11-17-2003 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
11-12-2003 6:25 PM


I thought it was the man-person that would be "invalid". If this human is Matchette's p69 last I would not accept this as consequence EVEN IF CONCLUSIVE TO A MIND, namely,
"This then is the character and status of the metaphysical force. Polarity; the fundamental demiurgos, the basic causative tension which produces the multitudinous combiantoryal complexes, which, actualizing the immanent traits of the Zero-Atom Unit, constrcuts the relaitve world in all its dynamism and activity - the vast procession of relative existence 'upward' toward the Absolute, culminating in man, the least divergent of all relative existents and it is to him that we now trun in more detail."

I hope that this is easier to get across than trying to explain how The Matrix matrix and Matchette's matrix are rather (likelu) being confused for an idol.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2003 6:25 PM PaulK has not yet responded

sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 115 (67267)
11-17-2003 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by grace2u
11-17-2003 6:01 PM


grace2u

I simply refer to the following as defined through revealed theology:

I am assuming revealed theology means the Bible. That is hardly rigorous since we have difficulty determining an unambiguous interpretation.By rigorous I would have expected a reasoned step by step approach that could have explanatory power.Oh well.

the whole collection of existing things both physical and metaphysical, material and non-material

We have no understanding of what constitutes non-material since there is no manifestation of such in the world around us.The same goes for the metaphysical.What you offer is only opinion not substance.

Ok as for the logic I would like to know how you have established any sequential formal arguement that supports the premises you make.

[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-17-2003]

[This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-17-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 6:01 PM grace2u has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 115 (67271)
11-17-2003 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
11-17-2003 5:38 PM


Grace? Am I talking to myself, here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2003 5:38 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 10:35 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 91 by :æ:, posted 11-18-2003 11:57 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15674
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 87 of 115 (67286)
11-18-2003 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by grace2u
11-17-2003 8:45 PM


In addiiton to JustionCy's comments, I would like you to show that there is one universal truth that is rejected by atheists.

Remmember to prove that it is a univerasal truth AND that it is rejected by all atheists (including religious atheists, such as religious [as opposed to secular] humanists, the atheists within Hinduism and Buddhism and Objectivists).

Please do so without making silly suggestions like the idea that a universal truth would be a god (I'm still laughing at that one, it really is one of the daftest things I've ever heard).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 8:45 PM grace2u has not yet responded

grace2u
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 115 (67325)
11-18-2003 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
11-17-2003 11:51 PM


OK.. Let me address your comments Crashfrog..

After all atheists do believe in universal, invariant laws - the laws of physics.
I agree that they are, but how can these be universal and invariant in your worldview?? Is this not a struggle for you?

The rest of what you term "laws" aren't really central to your argument, so the question of whether or not they're universal and invariant - which they're not - is made irrelevanta rational atheist?
I disagree they are central in a sense. At it is, one produce any number of arguments for the existence of God using any one of these. Perhaps it would be more clear if I said the laws of reason as opposed to laws of logic, to clear up any semantic related problems. When theists make these claims, that is in essence what we are saying. So when I use the term laws of logic, It can by synonomous with laws of reason. The laws of thought , laws of morality are others. my contention in this entire argument has been these laws exist outside of our own mind(universal) and that they are unchanging. I say the universe and our very discussion demands this truth be so.

For the sake of discussion however, the laws of physics were derived using among other things laws of logic(reason) in a sense and laws of thought for certain. Why is it that you can reason that if something happens over and over again, then there is a high probability that it will continue to behave in this manner? If the laws of reason didn't exist these contentions could not be made, and as I've stated before(and yet to be refuted), science would be impossible. BTW, I am not contending that the laws of physics as man understands them are universal and invariant. THe laws of science are in their fullness(known by God at a minimum and parlty by man)

But they're not everywhere. They're only the same everywhere that humans are. Surely you don't think "universal among humans" is the same as "universal"?
Yes they are. I would imagine an astrophysicist would contend that at a minimum, the laws of thoguht are neccessary to begin the conversation and that the laws of logic are to deduce anything from any observations made. Nature itself is goverend by laws of logic(reason) in a sense. It behaves in an orderly way for the most part. Surely you meant something else by that statement....clarify?

Why must universal truth, or the laws of physics anyway, stem from a god? That's a non-sequitor
Again, this is one argument of many that one could produce.
I am sure you would agree that God either exists or He doesn't. If it can be demonstrated that He can not NOT exist, then He must exist. It is demonstrated that these facts are mutually exclusive. If absolute truths exist what are they? It is not enough to say they are just there. How can anything be unchanging and universal in an atheist world? Again please show me where I am wrong. Why is it no one is showing me how they can even begin to exist in an atheistic world? Even if you could, I would argue that this truth is in essence a type of god and yes I will demonstrate why when I respond to Paul.

where does your God come from? How does your model account for the existence of God?
He is eternal. This is a presupposition as well as evidenced. Metaphysical realities can begin to make sense within theism since they in essence reflect the nature and character of God.

If we found Christianity to be reasonable, we wouldn't be atheists, would we
I grant this. You obviosly do not find it to be reasonable. Why do you contend atheism is more rational? There have been over 100 formal arguments made for the existence of God. If just one is correct theism is valid. I have really never seen anything come close for atheism. At best, you might have a case against the inerancy of scripture(again, I am not granting this point). This is a philisophical debate more than a scientific one. How can atheism even begin to give an account for the metaphysical , nonmaterial realites of our world in a logical coherent manner? Again, it is forced to deny the realities of the world in which they live while they even use these realities and are dependent upon them.

See, we're saying the same thing about you. You say that the laws of morality, logic, and thought are universal and invariant. We observe that in reality, morals are local and variant. We observe that logic is only as universal as the human mind

I understand that you are saying the same about me. I contend, that the theistic probabilities far outweigh the atheistic ones. I haven't really argued from morality as strong as I will in my next post but they are not changing and they are not local. I have demonstrated that the laws of logic(reason) apply outside the realm of mans mind. The universe is goverend by this, reflecting the nature character and glory of God.

We observe that the possibility of thought is boundless, not invariant.
I agree on this one. Are you mistaking this for the laws of thought? The laws of thought are much different than what you are thinking they are. They are extremely common within the world of philosophy. Some contend they do not exist(although to my knowledge no rational philosopher would contend this), most agree they do.

Thanks for the reply...

"Christe eleison"

[This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-18-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2003 11:51 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by NosyNed, posted 11-18-2003 11:16 AM grace2u has responded
 Message 90 by Dr Jack, posted 11-18-2003 11:47 AM grace2u has not yet responded
 Message 93 by sidelined, posted 11-18-2003 12:16 PM grace2u has responded
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2003 2:45 PM grace2u has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 89 of 115 (67336)
11-18-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by grace2u
11-18-2003 10:35 AM


the laws of thoguht(sic)

Could you elucidate these laws of thought please? You seem to make up a lot of things without explaining the terms you have already used.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 10:35 AM grace2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 12:15 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 450 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 90 of 115 (67343)
11-18-2003 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by grace2u
11-18-2003 10:35 AM


There have been over 100 formal arguments made for the existence of God. If just one is correct theism is valid.

None are valid. Next.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 10:35 AM grace2u 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