Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The metaphysics of there being no God.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The metaphysics of there being no God.

    The metaphysics of there being no God. The premise there is no God.

    Nothingness never existed. There has therefore always been an uncaused existence. Uncaused existence needs no God.

    The universe is everything which exists.

    The challenge for theists and deists, show the premise there is no God is a fallacy. Show that there being no God is absurd.

    There is no God, how can that be absurd?
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  • #2
    We know time is unnecessary for existence because infinite temporal regression is impossible. We can thus postulate that there is some manner of existence beyond our universe in which there is no time. In such a state we have two options:

    a) Nothing can happen
    b) everything happens constantly

    We know a) isn't true since we're here, so we can further postulate that outside of our universe there is non-temporal existence where anything that can happen will happen (including the creation of our universe). We further know that sentience and the accumulation of power is possible. Thus we can further postulate that it is possible that a sentient being might gather enough power to be virtually omnipotent if given enough time. But since there is no time, and everything that can happen does happen, the existence of at least one such being is guaranteed.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      We know time is unnecessary for existence because infinite temporal regression is impossible.
      No. It is not impossible. It is just not believed by theists. If there be no time, an infinite series, would then be simultaneous. Not beginning and no end all at once. Our universe has time, space time. An apparent uncaused origin. Or a current status of an infinite series with no first cause in the series.

      We can thus postulate that there is some manner of existence beyond our universe in which there is no time. In such a state we have two options:

      a) Nothing can happen
      b) everything happens constantly
      No. The universe is defined as everything that exists. There would be no existence "beyond" the universe by reason that all existence is what makes up the universe.
      We know a) isn't true since we're here, so we can further postulate that outside of our universe there is non-temporal existence where anything that can happen will happen (including the creation of our universe). We further know that sentience and the accumulation of power is possible. . .
      There is no outside the universe, the universe being everything that exists. It may be outside our known space-time. But what ever exists is part of the universe.

      The universe is everything which exists.
      Thus we can further postulate that it is possible that a sentient being might gather enough power to be virtually omnipotent if given enough time. But since there is no time, and everything that can happen does happen, the existence of at least one such being is guaranteed.
      No. Not when there is no such being. [see OP premise]

      The metaphysics of there being no God. The premise there is no God.
      [Changing the premise does not prove the OP premise false. Changing the rules to win?]

      That a theist or deist cannot prove an absurdity for the premise that there is no God, is a proof that there is no God. [That is the argument]
      . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        No. It is not impossible. It is just not believed by theists. If there be no time, an infinite series, would then be simultaneous. Not beginning and no end all at once. Our universe has time, space time. An apparent uncaused origin. Or a current status of an infinite series with no first cause in the series.
        If there be no time then time can't infinitely regress can it? Other than that you're just repeating what I already said, except your vocabulary is pretty poor. There is no "series" if everything is simultaneous. Is English your second language?

        No. The universe is defined as everything that exists. There would be no existence "beyond" the universe by reason that all existence is what makes up the universe.
        There is no outside the universe, the universe being everything that exists. It may be outside our known space-time. But what ever exists is part of the universe.
        Semantics.

        No. Not when there is no such being. [see OP premise]
        I demonstrated that there is, so your first OP premise is wrong. Your second OP premise "Nothingness never existed" is not something you can actually demonstrate.

        [Changing the premise does not prove the OP premise false. Changing the rules to win?]

        That a theist or deist cannot prove an absurdity for the premise that there is no God, is a proof that there is no God. [That is the argument]
        I didn't change it, I proved the OP premise wrong using deductive logic based on non-divine premises rooted in rational thought. Other than that you're just making a circular argument, setting the things you ask others to disprove as a premise. By debunking the premise one debunks the argument.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          If there be no time then time can't infinitely regress can it?
          There would only be a "now" Your item b)

          b) everything happens constantly
          There would be no "happens constantly."


          Other than that you're just repeating what I already said, except your vocabulary is pretty poor. There is no "series" if everything is simultaneous. Is English your second language?
          English is my sole language. And some ideas are hard to communicate. I used the term "series" to replace "regress." And used the term "simultaneous" instead of "happens constantly." Where there is no time, there are no events. What would be a string of events in time, would not be. Even the term "simultaneous" means at the "same time." Which has the same problem.

          Nothingness, which has neither space nor time, neither light nor dark, never existed nor exists. There is only the self existence. Which needs no cause. Needs no God.


          Semantics.
          No. A concept. Just like the idea of a God who is "everlasting from everlasting" -- Psalm 90:2. The universe meaning everything that exists, is a concept of the term "universe." From a theist point of view "all creation."

          Even the concept of a "cause" is a word which denotes time. Now, if there was no time prior to "space-time." There is no before the universe being "space-time." Without time we have an ex nihilo origin for the universe, which is not an effect until after it exists. There would be no before, only an after. And uncaused after. The idea of an uncaused "effect." And the sentence, "Now if there was no time prior to 'space-time,'" is malformed. No "space-time" there is no "prior." There are no "verbs" for the absence of time. In our language "verbs" denote time. The whole concept of "no time" is a problem.


          I demonstrated that there is, so your first OP premise is wrong.
          Did you self destruct the concept? No. You set out to set up a contradictory premise, "We can thus postulate" something contradictory to the "universe being everything."
          Your second OP premise "Nothingness never existed" is not something you can actually demonstrate.
          Oh, then what is "nothingness?" If nothingness is to exist, which is self contradictory, in that, to exist which is opposite. That nothingness, nonexistence, would be a definite proof that there was never a God. Because a God is something, not nothing. Nothingness means not to exist. It very definition means it is not.

          I didn't change it, I proved the OP premise wrong using deductive logic based on non-divine premises rooted in rational thought.
          A is true.
          If B is true, then A is false.
          B is true, therefore A is false.

          Your opening argument:
          We know time is unnecessary for existence because infinite temporal regression is impossible.
          1) You premised time is unnecessary.
          2) You premised 1) is true, because infinite temporal regression is impossible.

          So really your first premise is not "we know time is unnecessary."
          1) Your premise is an "infinite temporal regress is impossible."
          2) Therefore, "time is unnecessary."

          How do we know item 1) "infinite temporal regress is impossible?"
          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          We know time is unnecessary for existence because infinite temporal regression is impossible. . . .
          The OP argument, On the premise that there is no God. And that the universe is everything that exists.
          Can you make the premise to self destruct?

          You want to allow for nothingness, that would do away with God, by the way.

          [Nothingness never existed. It is not by its own definition, nothingness. Nothingness logically means there is self existence. Which by the way, is a claim made for God.
          Self existence does not need any God.]



          Other than that you're just making a circular argument, setting the things you ask others to disprove as a premise. By debunking the premise one debunks the argument.
          Actually if the premise that there is no God cannot be logically shown to self destruct, to be absurd, effectively show the premise at the very least can be true. The argument being, if the premise "that there is no God" cannot be shown to be absurd, it is true.
          Last edited by 37818; 01-21-2014, 11:18 AM.
          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

          Comment


          • #6
            Infinite regression would be a human math construct, and exist within time. The concept of Infinite Regression cannot be used to conclude that infinities do not exist.

            Yes, the present cosmological view incudes models of universes where relative space time begins at the beginning of each possible universe. This does not detract from the possibility of a great cosmic existence from which universes originate. There are also possible models of universes that are infinite without beginning nor end.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Nothingness, which has neither space nor time, neither light nor dark, never existed nor exists. There is only the self existence. Which needs no cause. Needs no God.
              This is possible naturally if a greater cosmos exists from which possible universes originate.

              A concept. Just like the idea of a God who is "everlasting from everlasting" -- Psalm 90:2. The universe meaning everything that exists, is a concept of the term "universe." From a theist point of view "all creation."
              This is possible also.

              Even the concept of a "cause" is a word which denotes time. Now, if there was no time prior to "space-time." There is no before the universe being "space-time." Without time we have an ex nihilo origin for the universe, which is not an effect until after it exists. There would be no before, only an after. And uncaused after. The idea of an uncaused "effect." And the sentence, "Now if there was no time prior to 'space-time,'" is malformed. No "space-time" there is no "prior." There are no "verbs" for the absence of time. In our language "verbs" denote time. The whole concept of "no time" is a problem.
              If a greater cosmos exists without relative 'space nor time' from which universe originate the cause would be natural and not an 'uncaused cause.'


              Did you self destruct the concept? No. You set out to set up a contradictory premise, "We can thus postulate" something contradictory to the "universe being everything."
              Oh, then what is "nothingness?" If nothingness is to exist, which is self contradictory, in that, to exist which is opposite. That nothingness, nonexistence, would be a definite proof that there was never a God. Because a God is something, not nothing. Nothingness means not to exist. It very definition means it is not.
              The greater cosmos from which all possible relative time/space universes originate is also possible.







              1) You premised time is unnecessary.
              2) You premised 1) is true, because infinite temporal regression is impossible.
              Infinite temporal regression is a human construct would exist within an existing greater time frame. An infinite past can possible exist without reference to an 'infinite temporal regression. Naturally time has not increments nor numbers, it simply exists.


              You want to allow for nothingness, that would do away with God, by the way.
              Nothingness is not known to exist.

              [Nothingness never existed. It is not by its own definition, nothingness. Nothingness logically means there is self existence. Which by the way, is a claim made for God.
              Self existence does not need any God.]
              Nothingness does not logically lead anywhere, because nothingness is hypothetical and not demonstrated as a reality. Yes the possibilities of a natural self existence without cause would an argument that existence does not 'need' God, but this is a human construct based on the belief of a 'need.' It would not necessarily follow that a Source some call God(s) exists or not.



              Actually if the premise that there is no God cannot be logically shown to self destruct, to be absurd, effectively show the premise at the very least can be true. The argument being, if the premise "that there is no God" cannot be shown to be absurd, it is true.
              Yes, the none existence of a Source some call God(s) is possible, because all these arguments are based on assumptions from the human perspective, and anthropomorphic concepts of 'need' and limitations of what is 'cause.' This is where the logical arguments for the existence or none existence of a Source some call God(s) hit the wall.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                English is my sole language. And some ideas are hard to communicate. I used the term "series" to replace "regress." And used the term "simultaneous" instead of "happens constantly." Where there is no time, there are no events. What would be a string of events in time, would not be. Even the term "simultaneous" means at the "same time." Which has the same problem.
                I don't see the problem. Not for me anyway. My thesis pretty much relies on that.

                Nothingness, which has neither space nor time, neither light nor dark, never existed nor exists. There is only the self existence. Which needs no cause. Needs no God.
                I never said it needs a God. It might, but I don't know for sure. What I said is that it would produce one.


                No. A concept. Just like the idea of a God who is "everlasting from everlasting" -- Psalm 90:2. The universe meaning everything that exists, is a concept of the term "universe." From a theist point of view "all creation."
                Yes. The term universe is not used exclusively to refer to everything that was created.

                universe  
                Use Universe in a sentence
                u·ni·verse [yoo-nuh-vurs] Show IPA
                noun
                1.
                the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
                2.
                the whole world, especially with reference to humanity: a truth known throughout the universe.
                3.
                a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails: his private universe.

                Even the concept of a "cause" is a word which denotes time. Now, if there was no time prior to "space-time." There is no before the universe being "space-time." Without time we have an ex nihilo origin for the universe, which is not an effect until after it exists.There would be no before, only an after. And uncaused after. The idea of an uncaused "effect." And the sentence, "Now if there was no time prior to 'space-time,'" is malformed. No "space-time" there is no "prior." There are no "verbs" for the absence of time. In our language "verbs" denote time. The whole concept of "no time" is a problem.
                This is nonsense. I already explained why existence without time is a necessity.

                Did you self destruct the concept? No. You set out to set up a contradictory premise, "We can thus postulate" something contradictory to the "universe being everything."
                No, you're the one fixated on the definition of universe. My premise doesn't actually contradict any of yours, it's the logical consequences of my premises (which unlike yours, can actually be determined to be true as opposed to being manufactured to make a circular argument) that debunk your premise.

                Oh, then what is "nothingness?"
                I don't see what nothingness has to do with this. I agree that nothingness never existed.

                How do we know item 1) "infinite temporal regress is impossible?"
                If time has no beginning it will never get to any specific point. Count backwards from infinity. How long does it take to get to 10? You'll never get to 10. You won't get to ten counting forward from negative infinity either.

                You want to allow for nothingness, that would do away with God, by the way.
                No I don't.

                Actually if the premise that there is no God cannot be logically shown to self destruct, to be absurd, effectively show the premise at the very least can be true. The argument being, if the premise "that there is no God" cannot be shown to be absurd, it is true.
                Well, let's apply your argument to something else:

                The metaphysics of there being God. The premise there is a God.

                Nothingness never existed. There has therefore always been an uncaused existence. That uncaused existence is God.

                The universe is everything which exists.

                The challenge for atheists, show the premise there is a God is a fallacy. Show that there being a God is absurd.

                There is a God, how can that be absurd?


                Obviously both of our premises can't be true since they're contradictory. All it shows is that within this small, self-contained argument, it is possible for the premise to be true. In other words, it doesn't show anything.
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Infinite temporal regression is a human construct would exist within an existing greater time frame. An infinite past can possible exist without reference to an 'infinite temporal regression. Naturally time has not increments nor numbers, it simply exists.
                  Come on Shuny. Time is a finite quantity. And one we can and do quantify.
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                    I don't see the problem. Not for me anyway. My thesis pretty much relies on that.
                    Is it because you do not what to? And not wanting to see the problem, does not prove the premise "that there is no God" to be absurd.


                    I never said it needs a God. It might, but I don't know for sure. What I said is that it would produce one.
                    Any entity subordinate to existence is no God. A produced God is no God.



                    Yes. The term universe is not used exclusively to refer to everything that was created.
                    That is true. But as used in the OP it means "everything that exists."
                    universe  
                    Use Universe in a sentence
                    u·ni·verse [yoo-nuh-vurs] Show IPA
                    noun
                    1.
                    the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.
                    2.
                    the whole world, especially with reference to humanity: a truth known throughout the universe.
                    3.
                    a world or sphere in which something exists or prevails: his private universe.
                    And the meaning being used in the OP is that "the universe is everything which exists."


                    This is nonsense. I already explained why existence without time is a necessity.
                    You have asserted that. But on an unsubstantiated, an ". . . infinite temporal regression is impossible."


                    No, you're the one fixated on the definition of universe. My premise doesn't actually contradict any of yours, it's the logical consequences of my premises (which unlike yours, can actually be determined to be true as opposed to being manufactured to make a circular argument) that debunk your premise.
                    In your mind.
                    You presume existence without time. Such could be understood to rule out "everlasting from everlasting" too. Then latter becomes pure fantasy.


                    I don't see what nothingness has to do with this. I agree that nothingness never existed.
                    This establishes that there must be a self existent existence.


                    If time has no beginning it will never get to any specific point. Count backwards from infinity. How long does it take to get to 10? You'll never get to 10. You won't get to ten counting forward from negative infinity either.
                    Time with no beginning till now. Would not make now not exist.


                    No I don't.
                    Agreed.


                    Well, let's apply your argument to something else:

                    The metaphysics of there being God. The premise there is a God.

                    Nothingness never existed. There has therefore always been an uncaused existence. That uncaused existence is God.
                    Good. Now can you make the case that is not a special pleading?
                    The universe is everything which exists.

                    The challenge for atheists, show the premise there is a God is a fallacy. Show that there being a God is absurd.

                    There is a God, how can that be absurd?
                    It is a special pleading.
                    Obviously both of our premises can't be true since they're contradictory. All it shows is that within this small, self-contained argument, it is possible for the premise to be true. In other words, it doesn't show anything.
                    The premise "there is an uncaused existence." Which needs no God.
                    The two contradictory premises, "Therefore there is no God" versus "That the self existent existence is God."

                    What is need from this to show "there not being a God is in fact absurd?"
                    Last edited by 37818; 01-21-2014, 03:24 PM.
                    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      Is it because you do not what to?
                      You said English isn't your first language. Do you have some sort of development problem then? Your posts are virtually unreadable. It's not even bad english in the traditional sense, you sometimes string words together that have no coherent meaning.

                      Any entity subordinate to existence is no God. A produced God is no God.
                      Historically there have been plenty of gods that were considerably weaker than existence (see: any polytheist society). God is a fairly broad concept largely defined as "extremely powerful being"

                      That is true. But as used in the OP it means "everything that exists."
                      And the meaning being used in the OP is that "the universe is everything which exists."
                      I didn't write the OP though. It's obvious from my post and its context what I was referring to. Hence you harping on about semantics, which I am tired of. Don't bother bringing this pointless drivel up again, I'l ljust ignore it.


                      You have asserted that. But on an unsubstantiated, an ". . . infinite temporal regression is impossible."
                      I substantiated it in the post you are replying to.


                      In your mind.
                      You presume existence without time. Such could be understood to rule out "everlasting from everlasting" too. Then latter becomes pure fantasy.
                      No, it's accurate because an existence without time never ends. Plus, infinite temporal progression is not irrational. Time can keep continuing, never stopping. That's infinity.


                      This establishes that there must be a self existent existence.
                      Like God.


                      Time with no beginning till now. Would not make now not exist.
                      I repeat my question on whether you have some sort of impaired development.

                      Good. Now can you make the case that is not a special pleading?
                      It is a special pleading.
                      It's not special pleading anymore than your original argument was. I am showing that using the exact same logic can arrive at the opposite conclusion by swapping one unverifiable premise for another. You are the one pleading that your unverifiable premise be accepted.

                      The premise "there is an uncaused existence." Which needs no God.
                      It also doesn't need the non-existence of God.

                      What is need from this to show "there not being a God is in fact absurd?"
                      I don't need to show that there not being a God is in fact absurd to show that your original logic is flawed. I've done it twice using two wildly different methods. It's a bunk circular argument based on unverifiable premises that proves nothing.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                        Come on Shuny. Time is a finite quantity. And one we can and do quantify.
                        False, time exists, it is not a quantity, infinite nor finite. Quantities of time is human constraint not a natural one. In physics space/time defines the nature of our universe, not an independent quantity 'time.' The origins or beginning of space/time are at present unknown. Some possible models describe it with a beginning of each possible universe, some describe it as without beginning nor ending. Can you cite a source in Physics and Cosmology that cites time as a finite quantity?
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-21-2014, 04:57 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hey numbered guy. How is it different to believe in an uncaused "universe" than it is to believe in an uncaused creator. Give me one reason to believe in an "eternal uncaused universe."
                          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            False, time exists, it is not a quantity, infinite nor finite. Quantities of time is human constraint not a natural one.
                            It's not a constraint, it's a description.

                            In physics space/time defines the nature of our universe, not an independent quantity 'time.' Can you cite a source in Physics and Cosmology that cites time as a finite quantity?
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                              Hey numbered guy. How is it different to believe in an uncaused "universe" than it is to believe in an uncaused creator. Give me one reason to believe in an "eternal uncaused universe."
                              It is one possible belief or another. without a definitive conclusion.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                              1,258 responses
                              55,074 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Tassman
                              by Tassman
                               
                              Working...
                              X