Saint Graal Bringer Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 No, he made the assertion that we need a god or the concept of a god, he then went on to defend this with assertions and ideas that have no connection with the need for a god or the concept of a god... Why? Explain yourself! The sense of this discussion is argomentation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Ahw, the old "seeing is believing" school, I see. Quoting Einstein: "we may think nothing is a miracle, or we may think everything is a miracle". Let's not start out with an appeal to authority and a quote mine, if we are going to discuss this then try to defend your position with evidence... Tell me, what kind of evidence would you like to touch? A man who tell you "I'm God" and materialize a floating city in fornt of you? It would be quite shocking, you don't say?,No my first thought would be technology not god...even considering that that circumstances would probably make you thinking him more like a demon...No, I do not see any evidence of anything supernatural... this would include a demon...Or would you prefer him to show you what you want to see? I think it would be a glorious troll for you!Quite the contrary, what i want to see would not and should not figure into to it... The problem is that any tangible demonstration of its existence would violate your own free will,Fell free to elaborate on this, I do not see any connection between my free will and knowing a god exists in principle..and this because of the theoretical assumption that God is almighty.That is one assumption but not a preordained conclusion except for certain gods or pantheons of gods. But I think that also in those circumstances you will be skeptical... but even this wouldn't be a bad thing, mh...I am indeed skeptical but I remain open to evidence... Why? Explain yourself! The sense of this discussion is argomentation! i think i just did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altariva Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 Speaking about me and my opinion? DEFAULT POSITION? Are you serious? There is no "default position" which could be considered better or rightful than others: we all are here to make hypothesis, but you are just repeating the old seeing is believing school, not trying to improve a reasoning. Assuming as rightful only what you can measure by yourself is a extravagant way to say: "I'll be close in myself until you don't broke my shell"... be open-minded! Oh, really? Do you believe in the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster? Wow! I personally didn't feel the need to consider its existence, but now that I've known sometthing which help me making an idea of it, when I will meet it I will know if the creature which is in front of me is really FSM or not. Only knowing we'll be able to enlight our doubts, and this is also referred to further doubts. Make your own idea of "God", then you will know "if" what will be in front of you could be it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Graal Bringer Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 i think i just did... Wow... can you strive a little more and try to explain WHY you think this? what you maked are just phrases that any skeptical can say. you can't just tell me "i don't think would be a god, but technology". I would say the same thing, but i would also say why i think so. Maybe with something more than a phrase with 10 words *it would be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Wow... can you strive a little more and try to explain WHY you think this? what you maked are just phrases that any skeptical can say. you can't just tell me "i don't think would be a god, but technology". I would say the same thing, but i would also say why i think so. Maybe with something more than a phrase with 10 words *it would be He made the positive assertion, not me, it's up to him to defend it not my job to disprove anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Graal Bringer Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 He made the positive assertion, not me, it's up to him to defend it not my job to disprove anything... if you want to take part in this discussion you have not to disprove, just discuss... but with a real argomentation, not with expressions used from the middle age... (sorry, delete "the") -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Speaking about me and my opinion? DEFAULT POSITION? Are you serious? There is no "default position" which could be considered better or rightful than others: we all are here to make hypothesis, but you are just repeating the old seeing is believing school, not trying to improve a reasoning. Assuming as rightful only what you can measure by yourself is a extravagant way to say: "I'll be close in myself until you don't broke my shell"... be open-minded! Yes there is a default position, you have made a positive assertion which so far you have failed to back up. show me anything that would not work in our world with out god or the concept of god... other than religion... Oh, really? Do you believe in the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster? Wow! I personally didn't feel the need to consider its existence, but now that I've known sometthing which help me making an idea of it, when I will meet it I will know if the creature which is in front of me is really FSM or not. Only knowing we'll be able to enlight our doubts, and this is also referred to further doubts. Make your own idea of "God", then you will know "if" what will be in front of you could be it If is a huge word, if cannot be used to assert something as real, if the earth is really flat... if the earth is really just a flat disc under a crystal dome? I can postulate anything with if, if become nonsensical when used to assert reality with no evidence to back up the if... I have no concept of god to prove, the FSM was just an attempt to show you how unsupportable your position is. you make lots of grandiose claims that i cannot see any connection with the concept of god at all. then you expect me to disprove them? you need to support them, i do not have to disprove them... Until you come up with some empirical evidence to support the notion of god all your assertions about why we need god are simply opinions with no support. Show me something that we currently have that has to have a god for us to have it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altariva Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 I desume you would be interested of the functioning of that "floating city", and this is propter of a man of science, and it's a good point of view, I agree (me too would be quite interested), so that help me to consider the condition "meta-scientific" to the definition of "God". Interesting, because it is exactly where I want you to move steps: thinking "God" in a mechanical way isn't a good idea, beacuse it would be replicable or generally reducible to a scientific function. Perfect, then what could be a "meta-scientific God"? To define this, it would be useful to know the scientific reality of the facts, so that we'll be able to describe an irreplicable entity, eventually helping our reasoning with scientific paragons, but with the idea that we are speaking of something which is over the "simple" science. (There is a difference between me and you: you are skeptical, while I am critic in my reasoning. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) if you want to take part in this discussion you have not to disprove, just discuss... but with a real argomentation, not with expressions used from the middle age... (sorry, delete "the") Thankfully you do not get to decide if i can participate in this discussion, if you think i am being unfair or disrespectful then i suggest you press the report button... I desume you would be interested of the functioning of that "floating city", and this is propter of a man of science, and it's a good point of view, I agree (me too would be quite interested), so that help me to consider the condition "meta-scientific" to the definition of "God". Interesting, because it is exactly where I want you to move steps: thinking "God" in a mechanical way isn't a good idea, beacuse it would be replicable or generally reducible to a scientific function. Perfect, then what could be a "meta-scientific God"? To define this, it would be useful to know the scientific reality of the facts, so that we'll be able to describe an irreplicable entity, eventually helping our reasoning with scientific paragons, but with the idea that we are speaking of something which is over the "simple" science. (There is a difference between me and you: you are skeptical, while I am critic in my reasoning. ) Please tell me why i should accept the idea of god with no evidence to support that idea... So far all you are doing is assuming we need it, why do we need it? Edited February 7, 2013 by Moontanman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altariva Posted February 7, 2013 Author Share Posted February 7, 2013 Emplirical, empirical, empiricaaaaaal... I focused your way of thinking. We are not trying to confirm God existence, but just doing a speculative reflection on it, in fact the main question I stand starting this topic, was: "what should God be" (implicit: if it exists) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Emplirical, empirical, empiricaaaaaal... I focused your way of thinking. We are not trying to confirm God existence, but just doing a speculative reflection on it, in fact the main question I stand starting this topic, was: "what should God be" (implicit: if it exists) I suggest you go back and read the first three answers you got in this thread.. In your first paragraph you made some positive assertions that need to be backed up.... I think everyone registered in this forum - or at least any majority - would agree with me if I say that it is almost necessary to develop a definition of "God" and whatever is divine able to include and integrate what is purely scientific. This because a mere religious meaning of God is no longer exhaustive if referred to our contemporary: by now, human societies need a spiritual ideal able to sublime science, art and philosophy into the same "being". In other words, we need to redifine what is divine in order to create a system more comprehensive of everybody's acception of life: simply, the solution is a web of ideas which considers every kind of discipline and integrate different notions and opinions in the name of omnicomprehension and totality, and again, unity. These assertions are not universal and the majority of this forum have yet to chime in and assuming they agree with you is simply unacceptable.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Since science can't disprove the existence of God, then he should be constructive and should operate under proven concepts that remain correct forever and not a God who is destructive and operates under false principles. Why should anyone who's intelligence is sound be under a God who's isn't? That's like saying the most advanced intelligence would operate under the God's teachings for humans written in ancient texts that a lot of people today feel are inhumane and out of date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Since science can't disprove the existence of God, then he should be constructive and should operate under proven concepts that remain correct forever and not a God who is destructive and operates under false principles. Science has no intersection with the supernatural. Secondly by constraining a supernatural being you are firstly begging the question of her existence and thirdly creating a logical contradiction by using the word supernatural Why should anyone who's intelligence is sound be under a God who's isn't? I can posit a creator supernatural being who farts universes into existence with the same level of care and knowledge of self-existence as a water buffalo. The point is why would we posit a supernatural being per se; there is no evidence to promote the theory and no real gaps that require divine filling That's like saying the most advanced intelligence would operate under the God's teachings for humans written in ancient texts that a lot of people today feel are inhumane and out of date. many very advanced and intelligent people do just that - the world would be historically bereft of our ancient learning were it not for the great scholarship of those operating under the teachings of the Gods' of the middle east, india and north africa. The teachings were reactionary and dogmatic - but the scholars labouring under their auspices saved much of the progressive and enlightened classical learning and added massively to it I think everyone registered in this forum - or at least any majority - would agree with me if I say that it is almost necessary to develop a definition of "God" and whatever is divine able to include and integrate what is purely scientific. Not sure you would get so many takers as you expect. There may be a fruitful discussion which exercises our intellectual curiousity about whether there can be an agreed definition of something/someone which has zero evidence - yet which is claimed to exist. I can define the Millennium Falcon very well - and I am sure that I could get specifications that would boggle the mind - but it would be at an intellectual remove from reality; we can specify the sort of glass on the turrets because we know it is fictional. Similarly with leprechauns, unicorns, and fairies; definitions can be made whilst that proviso of falsity is agreed - but try to define a real unicorn and you hit a self-contradiction. This because a mere religious meaning of God is no longer exhaustive if referred to our contemporary: by now, human societies need a spiritual ideal able to sublime science, art and philosophy into the same "being". With respect - whatever is sublimed into art, philosophy, theology is I do not know - but it is not science. God is only really definable in a religious/theological milieu - outside that environment the question becomes self defeating In other words, we need to redifine what is divine in order to create a system more comprehensive of everybody's acception of life: simply, the solution is a web of ideas which considers every kind of discipline and integrate different notions and opinions in the name of omnicomprehension and totality, and again, unity. Whilst unity is a very noble cause in society, politics, and family - it has very little sway in science, or perhaps even in academe at all. I actively do not want unified depictions, definitions, and descriptions of god (or any other abstract or concrete entity) within the arts - the academic revolution of the 20th century was that context is everything in almost every human pursuit. The obvious exception is science doggedly clinging to, and prospering under, an antediluvian concept of objectivity. In many academic pursuits uniformity and unity are antithesis of progressive thought - and in science there is no point talking of a concept with no objective existential proof; so why the search for unity of a definition of god? My personal hint is to organize the establishment of a comunity which interest is to "renew God": I think traditions are no more able to hold the weight of such a definition, and what we need for is exactly to let our soul, reason and personal ethics shout "what we think God should be"; and this without the fear of any solemn judgement, because the prerogative of "God" is go(o)dness - irony. i. an interest to renew god begs the question of his existence ii. no evidence & no need to investigate iii. personally if the sum of religions' historical and current actions are indicative of the nature of god (ie even as a human construct without a necessary external existence) then I want nothing to do with bolstering her approval ratings by redefing her for the 21st century. I hope some of you would like this enterprise, so to "forge" a sort of study commettee P.S.: obviousluy, I will write my personal opinion about God very soon, but first I'd like to read some comments. /snipped Probably I know what you are going to answer, so I clarify: if we assume the inexistence of something which could be called "God", the only action we'll make is to not consider the whole range of possibilities ("it does not exist, so why should I deepen such absurd ideas?"), but in this case you won't achieve any enlightenment; on the other hand, you know you cannot accept a definition of God such the traditional one, this becouse of your scientific (or simply, more rational) background, so you would ask yourself about its eventual necessity for explaining something, but you know that apart few advices or spiritual consolations it would be completely pointless... and this because, effectively, we have still a instrument to fathom the reality (a fantastic one: science!), so any extra one seems to be useless, eventually self-defeating. In this way we understand that "God" isn't precisely something able to help us to describe the fact of things: if it want to exist, it must be something different... There is another, in my mind, far more likely way to fail to achieve enlightenment; it is to live one's life, direct one's studies, hone one's mind etc under the misconception that god matters. A belief in a higher supernatural power creates a toxic personal sensorium which perverts and deforms everything which we perceive - why are you trying to make people filter every part of their lives through a concept that probably doesn't exist? Just look at the results of the organised religions who took that dangerous germ of an idea into their hearts and lived and took decisions that privileged their concept of god rather than their fellow human beings. I say: maybe. As it seems, some of you says something like: "when we don't want anyone to question it"... well, very well kick-off! I mean that if we want to answer in a precise way to the question on its reality (not perfect, but precise will be enough), we must question it, and whenever it seems to not exist, keep questioning: because, as it happens in science, if we stop deepening the fact, no answer would be able to satisfy our rationality (but also our ethics)! The main question is "why?" - The main reason I can see is to provide some form of intellectual immunity to what I consider a dangerous pathogen - but frankly I think isolation is a better course of events to avoid a re-infection of that most dangerous meme In a way it would sound somewhat epic, I appeal to you: let's find the last corner left for God! Just keep seeking, because our freedom derives from our capability of believing! The great thinkers of the enlightenment have simultaneously started turning in their graves. freedom derives from our capacity to love; from our boundless imagination; from the ability to think rationally yet behave marvelously irrationally; from the art we produce, consume, and live in wonder at and many other things - religious belief is what constrains, trammels, and harnesses us. You are advocating an easy oppression, an abdication of ultimate responsibility - I embrace the horrific and lonely fact that we are the sole makers of our own destiny. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altariva Posted February 8, 2013 Author Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) I had already specified that I do not mean "believing" in a religious way, so the definition of freedom you gave is in accord to mine: moreover, have I ever suggested to found a religion? No. Besides this, I think you (imatfaal) had just underlined a turning point for this discussion: you said "no evidence & no need to investigate", but why? Why there would be no need to investigate if just there is no evidence? Why should we abort this reflection only for the fact that we have not yet numbers and measures from which to start? We should try to make hypotheses instead, speculate assuming from time to time some possibilities. Now then I will clarify something: everyone is free to comment this topic, but the majority of you hasn't yet understood its core. I'm not trying to make you trust in "God", I'm not trying to convert you to any hypothetical religion: the original intent of this topic is not to discuss the existence of "God", but to speculate over what could be its hypothetical essence. So, comments like "no evidence & no need to investigate" disclose the fact that "some" users are not interested to speculate, and definitively are not useful to this discussion if what the want to say is just like this... Nevertheless, some interesting phrases came out anyhow: "no real gaps (...) require divine filling" for example helps "us" (who is interested in speculating) to understand that the definition of "God" is not so relevant for the study of the tangible/scientific sphere (in which I possibly include the mental one), so our speculation should move on a meta-scientific area of studies. In fact I'm interested to direct this discussion by ethical reflections: because effectively there are no measures able to confirm te existence/inexistence of "the higher concept", not the religion (as you correctly say, any form of dogmatism is undeniably toxic for us) but only the sense of morality could be able to help us redefining what "God" should possibly be nowadays. So, if there are no real gaps requiring God, it means "God" is over the only reality: it we posit it exists, then it should be more complex of (scientific) reality; if we posit it does not possibly exist, then our presence in this topic is superfluous, eventually pointless. I will repeat again and again: we are just speculating! We think that just because there is no scientific evidence of something's existence, it is not a sufficient condition to abort a reflection. So we speculate starting by the hypothesis "God exist": we don't want to discuss the eventuality of its existence/inexistence, because in fact there are no scientific evidences to start a discussion by, but anyhow we can try to imagine what it could/should be... or are you telling me that my curiosity is unjustified? I answer this: I'm curious to imagine "God", so I posit its existance and then try to describe what I think of it. If you posit its inexistance instead, I'm sorry to say this topic is not the appropriate place for you: also, by this your assumption there would not possibly grow any reflection, and this because of what the hypothesis of inexistance implicits. P.S.: I think a better section for my topic would have been "Speculations" if just I had seen that before. Edited February 8, 2013 by Altariva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 I had already specified that I do not mean "believing" in a religious way, so the definition of freedom you gave is in accord to mine: moreover, have I ever suggested to found a religion? No. Besides this, I think you (imatfaal) had just underlined a turning point for this discussion: you said "no evidence & no need to investigate", but why? Why is there no need to investigate the existence of invisible unicorns? you want us to consider investigating something there is no evidence for, it's meaningless... Why there would be no need to investigate if just there is no evidence? Why should we abort this reflection only for the fact that we have not yet numbers and measures from which to start? We should try to make hypotheses instead, speculate assuming from time to time some possibilities. Now then I will clarify something: everyone is free to comment this topic, but the majority of you hasn't yet understood its core. I'm not trying to make you trust in "God", I'm not trying to convert you to any hypothetical religion: the original intent of this topic is not to discuss the existence of "God", but to speculate over what could be its hypothetical essence. So, comments like "no evidence & no need to investigate" disclose the fact that "some" users are not interested to speculate, and definitively are not useful to this discussion if what the want to say is just like this... Even speculation needs evidence for the speculation to be meaningful... Nevertheless, some interesting phrases came out anyhow: "no real gaps (...) require divine filling" for example helps "us" (who is interested in speculating) to understand that the definition of "God" is not so relevant for the study of the tangible/scientific sphere (in which I possibly include the mental one), so our speculation should move on a meta-scientific area of studies. In fact I'm interested to direct this discussion by ethical reflections: because effectively there are no measures able to confirm te existence/inexistence of "the higher concept", not the religion (as you correctly say, any form of dogmatism is undeniably toxic for us) but only the sense of morality could be able to help us redefining what "God" should possibly be nowadays. So, if there are no real gaps requiring God, it means "God" is over the only reality: it we posit it exists, then it should be more complex of (scientific) reality; if we posit it does not possibly exist, then our presence in this topic is superfluous, eventually pointless. I did not say god could not possibly exist, that would be a positive assertion requiring evidence but you are correct such speculation is pointless... btw how does god have anything to do with morality? I will repeat again and again: we are just speculating! We think that just because there is no scientific evidence of something's existence, it is not a sufficient condition to abort a reflection. So we speculate starting by the hypothesis "God exist": we don't want to discuss the eventuality of its existence/inexistence, because in fact there are no scientific evidences to start a discussion by, but anyhow we can try to imagine what it could/should be... or are you telling me that my curiosity is unjustified? i think your curiosity is admirable but in this case meaningless with out some evidence... If I were to ask you to posit the existence of aliens from zeta reticuli so I could ask what could/should their influence be on our social economic system if they did exist would that be a meaningful question since we know nothing of them what so ever? You could posit anything you wanted, no limits what so ever, it would be meaningless... I answer this: I'm curious to imagine "God", so I posit its existance and then try to describe what I think of it. If you posit its inexistance instead, I'm sorry to say this topic is not the appropriate place for you: also, by this your assumption there would not possibly grow any reflection, and this because of what the hypothesis of inexistance implicits. P.S.: I think a better section for my topic would have been "Speculations" if just I had seen that before. Even in speculations evidence of your speculation is required... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altariva Posted February 8, 2013 Author Share Posted February 8, 2013 you want us to consider investigating something there is no evidence for, it's meaningless... If you think it's meaningless, well, this is the proof you are not useful for this topic. You (general) are not enough open-minded. I investgate basing my reflections on philosophical speculations, so my "evidences" can be found only in the ethicity of my own speculations: if they are intelligible, philosophically sensate and logically correct (I mean their congruency), they can be considered relative proofs, and these in the area of speculation are meaningful evidences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 If you think it's meaningless, well, this is the proof you are not useful for this topic. You (general) are not enough open-minded. I investgate basing my reflections on philosophical speculations, so my "evidences" can be found only in the ethicity of my own speculations: if they are intelligible, philosophically sensate and logically correct (I mean their congruency), they can be considered relative proofs, and these in the area of speculation are meaningful evidences. Yes but you have yet to establish these things, you want us to posit them as factual before we start... btw what does ethicity mean? Being open minded does not mean i have to seriously consider anything and everything, that would be silly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altariva Posted February 8, 2013 Author Share Posted February 8, 2013 I posit mine, you posit yours: that's why I suggest you to write down yours here, in order to compare them to mine. I should have written "ethicality", sorry ("ethicity" is effectively meaningless...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) I posit mine, you posit yours: that's why I suggest you to write down yours here, in order to compare them to mine. Ok, exactly what are you positing? I should have written "ethicality", sorry ("ethicity" is effectively meaningless...) Ok, I know what that word means but how does it contribute to the discussion? The most serious problem here is a lack of a definition for god, before we posit anything about god we have to at least agree to disagree about what a definition of the word god would be. If it matters what i am positing here is the concept of god contributes nothing meaningful to reality... Edited February 8, 2013 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altariva Posted February 8, 2013 Author Share Posted February 8, 2013 Oh, excellent! So, by now, let's finally discuss about "what" God we think means: implicitly, we have to posit the hypothesys ""God" exist", but it's just a hypothesys, not a thesys we want to demonstrate or verify (here is the speculation!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Oh, excellent! So, by now, let's finally discuss about "what" God we think means: implicitly, we have to posit the hypothesys ""God" exist", but it's just a hypothesys, not a thesys we want to demonstrate or verify (here is the speculation!). The most honest thing i can say about god's (you have yet to define what a god is) is that gods apparently have no discernible effect on reality... Edited February 8, 2013 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altariva Posted February 8, 2013 Author Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Ok, you posit its meaningless contribution to reality, if it exists. This is (finally!!!) a contribution to this topic! I can agree if you mean that "God" does not interact scientifically/tangibly with reality, and this is why I spoke about a "resonance": something which does not directly shows itself in a specifical way, but which is a sort of hybrid, whose "role" cannot be explained just by a singular method, but needs a deeper interpretation. (I wrote a more complete reflection in my mother-language, and I will soon translate it in order to let you discern on it). Edited February 8, 2013 by Altariva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Ok, you posit its meaningless contribution to reality, if it exists. This is (finally!!!) a contribution to this topic! I can agree if you mean that "God" does not interact scientifically/tangibly with reality, and this is why I spoke about a "resonance": something which does not directly shows itself in a specifical way, but which is a sort of hybrid, whose "role" cannot be explained just by a singular method, but needs a deeper interpretation. Then we cannot agree because I did not in anyway suggest this to be what I meant... You immediately dive into meaningless speculation, please define exactly what you mean by. but which is a sort of hybrid, whose "role" cannot be explained just by a singular method, but needs a deeper interpretation. Before we go any further please define what you mean when you say god... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Sorry guys, I have not been paying attention. Which God are we on about? There seem to be lots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now