Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 136 of 301 (723299)
03-28-2014 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 3:32 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature.
Again, no it does not. A multiverse would cause a universe like ours to emerge and itself not be bound to the function of time or the notion of a beginning.
If "nature" is defined to be the earth, then this cause is "super-nature" by definition.
Wouldn't it just mean that we need to re-define nature to include the Andromeda galaxy?
2) nature (including the process that you propose) is eternal, with no beginning, in which case it has effectively become a god (an impersonal god in this case, similar to Spinoza's and Einstein's)
It simply means it is not bound to any function of time like beginning or end. Same as in Quantum Mechanics.
Is that what god is? Quantum Mechanics?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 3:32 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 6:12 PM onifre has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 137 of 301 (723300)
03-28-2014 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by onifre
03-28-2014 5:37 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
onifre writes:
kbertsche writes:
If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature.
Again, no it does not. A multiverse would cause a universe like ours to emerge and itself not be bound to the function of time or the notion of a beginning.
And again, yes it does.
Do you consider the hypothesized multiverse to be part of nature or not? If I understand your arguments, you seem to consider that a multiverse would be "natural", i.e. part of nature, and that it had no beginning. Thus, you seem to be arguing that nature had no beginning. (And if you consider the multiverse to be outside of nature, then the multiverse itself becomes the supernatural cause for nature.)
onifre writes:
kbertsche writes:
If "nature" is defined to be the earth, then this cause is "super-nature" by definition.
Wouldn't it just mean that we need to re-define nature to include the Andromeda galaxy?
That's one option. The other option would be to keep our definition of nature, in which case the Andromeda galaxy is "super-nature".
onifre writes:
kbertsche writes:
2) nature (including the process that you propose) is eternal, with no beginning, in which case it has effectively become a god (an impersonal god in this case, similar to Spinoza's and Einstein's)
It simply means it is not bound to any function of time like beginning or end. Same as in Quantum Mechanics.
Is that what god is? Quantum Mechanics?
As I understand it, this is essentially the impersonal "god" of Einstein and Spinoza (though Einstein didn't like or accept QM, of course).
{ABE: in my usage above, "nature" = "natural world". If you find my comments confusing, please try replacing "nature" with "natural world".}
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
Edited by kbertsche, : ABE

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 5:37 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 7:21 PM kbertsche has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 138 of 301 (723303)
03-28-2014 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 6:12 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Do you consider the hypothesized multiverse to be part of nature or not?
I've been trying to just deal with your use of the word nature but it's not working out. Nature is where deer and bears live.
What we are talking about is the universe, 4d spacetime, or reality of you'd like.
Now, do I consider a multiverse system where Brains and all that stuff reacts to create universes (I'm paraphrasing) as has been hypothesized to be part of our 4 dimensional spacetime? Then no. They are super small to the point where space and time cease to make any sense. Notions of begin and end are pointless.
The other option would be to keep our definition of nature, in which case the Andromeda galaxy is "super-nature".
So basically supernatural means even naturally existing galaxies too? That's nonsense.
As I understand it, this is essentially the impersonal "god" of Einstein and Spinoza
Then it is no god at all, as both of these guys have clearly stated before.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 6:12 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:59 PM onifre has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 139 of 301 (723312)
03-28-2014 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by onifre
03-28-2014 7:21 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
onifre writes:
kbertsche writes:
Do you consider the hypothesized multiverse to be part of nature or not?
I've been trying to just deal with your use of the word nature but it's not working out. Nature is where deer and bears live.
What we are talking about is the universe, 4d spacetime, or reality of you'd like.
Now, do I consider a multiverse system where Brains and all that stuff reacts to create universes (I'm paraphrasing) as has been hypothesized to be part of our 4 dimensional spacetime? Then no. They are super small to the point where space and time cease to make any sense. Notions of begin and end are pointless.
I'm simply trying to be consistent in my use of the terms. "Nature" includes everything that is "natural" and nothing that is not. Very simple. I don't care how you define nature/natural, so long as you are consistent and use the same semantic domain for both the noun and adjective forms of the word. Otherwise we can't communicate and will get nowhere.
"Reality" is a poor word to use, because we will not all agree on a definition. To a naturalist, "reality" is only nature. To a theist, "reality" includes the supernatural.
onifre writes:
kbertsche writes:
The other option would be to keep our definition of nature, in which case the Andromeda galaxy is "super-nature".
So basically supernatural means even naturally existing galaxies too? That's nonsense.
IF you use a restrictive definition for "nature", THEN you have automatically conveyed this same restrictive definition to the word "natural". IF you don't like this definition for "natural", THEN you need to enlarge your definition for "nature". Very simple; just be consistent in your use of the terms.
{ABE: If it helps, I could use the phrase "natural world" instead of the term "nature". Would this be clearer? Do you consider a hypothesized "multiverse" to be part of the "natural world"? Would you consider a multiverse to have a beginning to its existence?}
Edited by kbertsche, : ABE at end

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 03-28-2014 7:21 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2014 7:12 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 153 by onifre, posted 03-31-2014 11:24 AM kbertsche has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 140 of 301 (723324)
03-29-2014 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by kbertsche
03-28-2014 10:59 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
I'm simply trying to be consistent in my use of the terms. "Nature" includes everything that is "natural" and nothing that is not. Very simple. I don't care how you define nature/natural
Do you think the distinction between your position and Oni's is simply that Oni does not accept your definitions. That is clearly not the case.
The issue is that you label extra-universal things supernatural, which is okay as long as you are clear. You then say extra-universal events are supernatural causes, and that God is everything supernatural, which is your conclusion.
We know that you believe that God created the universe. For that matter, I believe it. But the issue is that you haven't produced an argument. You have steady simply equivocated about what supernatural means, and then pretended that we all must reach your conclusion despite the fact that you haven't produced an argument, philosophical or otherwise.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by kbertsche, posted 03-28-2014 10:59 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2014 12:25 PM NoNukes has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 141 of 301 (723333)
03-29-2014 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by NoNukes
03-29-2014 7:12 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes:
Do you think the distinction between your position and Oni's is simply that Oni does not accept your definitions. That is clearly not the case.
No, I'm sure that our disagreements run deeper. But until we can agree on definitions we cannot explore this.
NoNukes writes:
The issue is that you label extra-universal things supernatural, which is okay as long as you are clear. You then say extra-universal events are supernatural causes, and that God is everything supernatural, which is your conclusion.
No, I label anything outside the "natural world" as supernatural. I don't insist on any particular definition for "natural world". I'll go with whatever definition Oni wishes to use.
NoNukes writes:
We know that you believe that God created the universe. For that matter, I believe it. But the issue is that you haven't produced an argument. You have steady simply equivocated about what supernatural means, and then pretended that we all must reach your conclusion despite the fact that you haven't produced an argument, philosophical or otherwise.
I don't think I've equivocated at all; I'm just trying to allow for any definition of nature/natural that Oni wishes to use. Oni's answers are confusing to me and seem to flip-flop between different definitions for nature/natural, depending on whether he uses the noun or adjective form of the word.
I have not tried to produce an argument for God. I have only tried to explain some claims that others have made and that seem to be misunderstood.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2014 7:12 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2014 1:46 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 03-31-2014 5:03 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 301 (723336)
03-29-2014 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by kbertsche
03-29-2014 12:25 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
I have not tried to produce an argument for God. I have only tried to explain some claims that others have made and that seem to be misunderstood.
I am referring to those instances where you say that if someone believes "X" is an ultimate cause or that "Y" is eternal, that X or Y are that persons gods.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2014 12:25 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2014 8:12 PM NoNukes has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 143 of 301 (723337)
03-29-2014 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by shadow71
03-24-2014 12:36 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
"Had a begining'?? Or 'began to expand'. Those entirely two different concepts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by shadow71, posted 03-24-2014 12:36 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 144 of 301 (723339)
03-29-2014 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by NoNukes
03-29-2014 1:46 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes:
I am referring to those instances where you say that if someone believes "X" is an ultimate cause or that "Y" is eternal, that X or Y are that persons gods.
But I don't believe I've actually said this, have I? I believe I've said that in such situations X or Y are EFFECTIVELY that person's gods. By which I mean that the person would probably not refer to X or Y their "god", yet the person ascribes unique characteristics to X or Y, characteristics which are traditionally ascribed only to gods (externality, pre-existence, ultimate causation, uncaused existence).

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2014 1:46 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2014 10:58 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 154 by onifre, posted 03-31-2014 11:38 AM kbertsche has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 301 (723341)
03-29-2014 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by kbertsche
03-29-2014 8:12 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
EFFECTIVELY that person's gods. By which I mean that the person would probably not refer to X or Y their "god", yet the person ascribes unique characteristics to X or Y, characteristics which are traditionally ascribed only to gods (externality, pre-existence, ultimate causation, uncaused existence
That definition is total nonsense. If I think, mistakenly or not, that milk ultimately comes from lactating animals chewing on grass planted by farmer Brown, then those animals and farmer Brown are effectively my gods? Surely not.
'Effectively' already has a meaning, which is something like 'for all reasonable and germane purposes'. If instead, we are going to use your definition for 'effectively' which is something closer to 'what kbersche needs to make a point without making an effort' then I think we can dismiss the statement until after you actually make a point.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2014 8:12 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2014 11:55 PM NoNukes has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 146 of 301 (723342)
03-29-2014 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by NoNukes
03-29-2014 10:58 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes:
That definition is total nonsense. If I think, mistakenly or not, that milk ultimately comes from lactating animals chewing on grass planted by farmer Brown, then those animals and farmer Brown are effectively my gods? Surely not.
If you don't like my description of the characteristics of a "god", please present an alternative. What would YOU say describes a "god"?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2014 10:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by frako, posted 03-30-2014 7:04 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2014 9:55 PM kbertsche has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(3)
Message 147 of 301 (723344)
03-30-2014 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by kbertsche
03-29-2014 11:55 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
What would YOU say describes a "god"?
Imaginary, abstract, fictional, unreal, apocryphal, dreamed-up, made-up, non-existent, trumped up. Are some of the words i would use.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2014 11:55 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 301 (723350)
03-30-2014 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by kbertsche
03-29-2014 11:55 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
If you don't like my description of the characteristics of a "god", please present an alternative.
I am not going to provide an alternative. I think the entire approach of insisting that a singularity or a 'nothing' or 'the universe' is someone's god is silly and wrong.
And it is not a matter of what I "don't like".
Here is the question you are posing (as I interpret it): "Why cannot I (kbertsche) make a list of the characteristics I know or believe God has, and then without any other defense other than "it's traditional" tell others that anything that they say treads on my (kbertsche's) list is "effectively" their god.
Part of the answer is that what you call "traditional" excludes the beliefs of lots of god worshipers. The Greeks and Romans did not believe any sentient created the universe, and most of their gods did not create anything. Aphrodite did not create beauty, she was in charge of it. Hades did not create the underworld, he was simply in charge of it. Artemis did not invent the hunt, she embodied it. Ares did not invent war. They also were not eternal
Similarly, the Scandinavian gods largely created nothing.
I couldn't begin to unravel the traditions behind the Hindu pantheon.
Coming at things from another angle:
Despite the fact that people worshiped idols, I doubt that anyone ever believed that they created anything. Yet they were false gods.
So much for your traditional list.
Secondly, listing characteristics is not the same thing as defining. That's particularly true when you don't bother to be exhaustive, nor to insist that all of the characteristics must be met. I could describe Santa as a red clothed man who delivers toys on Christmas. But I could not logically then tell you that every man clad that way and bearing gifts is effectively Santa Claus.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by kbertsche, posted 03-29-2014 11:55 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by kbertsche, posted 03-30-2014 11:51 PM NoNukes has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 149 of 301 (723352)
03-30-2014 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by NoNukes
03-30-2014 9:55 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
NoNukes writes:
I am not going to provide an alternative. I think the entire approach of insisting that a singularity or a 'nothing' or 'the universe' is someone's god is silly and wrong.
And it is not a matter of what I "don't like".
FYI, here's a definition of "god" from Webster which is somewhat related to the way I was using the word:
Webster writes:
3. A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard.
Whose god is their belly.
Phil. iii. 19.
But I expect that you won't like this usage any better than mine, and will consider both Webster and the Apostle Paul to be "silly and wrong" in claiming that someone's belly can be their god.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2014 9:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by NoNukes, posted 03-31-2014 2:16 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 151 by frako, posted 03-31-2014 8:16 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 301 (723353)
03-31-2014 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by kbertsche
03-30-2014 11:51 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
FYI, here's a definition of "god" from Webster which is somewhat related to the way I was using the word:
quote:
3. A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard.
A god is a thing "deified". Is that how you define God? Isn't that just the tiniest bit circular? What kind of argument begins with "somewhat related" to your usage?
But I expect that you won't like this usage any better than mine
You are making this about me. I do not notice a single objection to even one of my arguments that you are wrong.
I'll address Apostle Paul's usage more directly. His usage is nothing like yours. When you approach his level of Christian apologetics, and I still dismiss you, perhaps you will have something to complain about.
quote:
Join together in following my example, brothers and sisters, and just as you have us as a model, keep your eyes on those who live as we do. 18 For, as I have often told you before and now tell you again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
Is this anything like your usage? Because Paul is talking about the fate of people who do not live as Christians and who may even persecute Christians even as Saul used to do. Is this really what you are talking about. Because if it is, then you are equivocating.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by kbertsche, posted 03-30-2014 11:51 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024