God is defined, not described.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Ted Grant II, Oct 9, 2017.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,793
    Which is?
    So your strawman would undoubtedly argue.
    But this doesn't speak to the actual veracity of what they say. Care to try a different answer?
    So your strawman would undoubtedly argue. Care to actually discuss, or are you simply here to assert what you think your strawman will say?
    That's an assumption on your part, I'm afraid. It simply does not logically follow that there is necessarily an outside, nor that the room was intelligently designed. Since you have an a priori assumption that there is something beyond, it is not surprising that you would think otherwise, though.
    So you continue upon your notion that God is a subjective matter. Ah, well.
    So you keep saying, based on what you think your strawman would undoubtedly argue.
    You would certainly like them to be, Jan. But they aren't. An unwillingness to address the issue, to explore the question, is no justification for calling them fundamental.
    The fundamental position is the one that remains when you do away with all a priori assumptions. Are you capable of doing that?
    So you keep saying, based on what you think your strawman would undoubtedly argue.
    There is failure, Jan. It is demonstrably true that practical matters can not account for all intellectual positions, and instead necessarily groups intellectual positions into binary forms.
    Whether it is a made up concept or not, the point remains.
    And how does this address the point? Answer: it doesn't. You are sidetracking, Jan. That is dishonest of you.
    One can not recognise what one does not know.
    It has occurred to me that God does exist, and I accept it as a possibility that I am unable to recognise it, yes. It is the agnostic position, Jan.
    Because the theory "God Is" looks identical in practice to the theory that does not include God.
    "Natural" theism or atheism, as you call it, is simply the result of not thinking too much about what you believe but just go with the flow... i.e. you do not seek to override the superstitious bent that humans have developed through evolution. If you honestly think people "just know" through such "natural" means then your argument is itself self-defeating... as both the "natural theist and atheist" would both know mutually exclusive things (God exists v. God does not exist). Thus being natural is no arbiter of reality.
    Seriously?? You honestly think that because you think it is "natural" for people to believe in God that God exists? The only reality is that they believe in God. Similarly you think it is "natural" for people to believe that God does not exist - and therefore this, too, is reality??? Please try to think through your arguments first, Jan.
    No, Jan, it does NOT imply that God IS. This is your a priori assumption. Nothing more.

    From now on I will simply ignore anything I perceive to be dripping in that a priori assumption, Jan, because until you let it go, just hypothetically for the purposes of discussion, then I may as well be talking to a brick wall.
    Ignored.
    God can be comprehended without believing in God, Jan. Comprehension does not equate to existence. Can you separate the ability to comprehend with the belief of existence?
    I hope there's an actual point lurking in here, Jan. Care to actually spell it out?
    Yes, murder could be said to be natural to humans. But it doesn't work as a counter-example to the point raised. The issue is how a belief being natural in any way supports the veracity of what is believed in. Or do you think superstitions are actually true?
    Care to address that issue now?
    I don't claim that. But you do claim that God Is is a fact. Yet you don't know that. You can't know that (as argued above), and all you can do is cycle your a priori assumption in the big ol' wheel of believing to believe.
    No - the lack of an a priori assumption.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,232
    That's not true Dave. As human beings, we are capable of discussing anything we wish to.

    Where have I said that?
    It's not good to lie or fabricate, what people say.

    I'm prepared to address any arguments that pertain to the matter we are discussing. You should try presenting one, or some, instead of trying to catch me out.

    Jan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,547
    The opening post makes some good points.

    Theists like Jan Ardena spend most of their time defining God into existence. Look:
    It's all very vague and hard to pin down, isn't it?

    But ask them to produce the elephant so we can examine and describe it, and they tell us that the elephant isn't available for examination. Not by us.

    Look at that rock, they say. It's God. So is that cat. So are you and I. But what we see are a rock, a cat and two people. The God is just defined into the picture, and not observed.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Thomas Cranmer Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    I can think of things that don't actually exist.

    The future, The Mekon, Zargons, Tharg, imaginary numbers, luck, ghosts, psychic pigs, the devil's apron strings,
    my grave, my lottery prize, my great great grandparents, my hair, my third leg, my big ****,
    the Nobel Prize for proving that Evolution is false,
    God's underpants,
    Sir Richard Dawkins.
    The end of this forum.
     
  8. Thomas Cranmer Registered Member

    Messages:
    61
    But when is a description exhaustive ?
    Could you describe the earth exhaustively ?
    A definition might be "The third planet from the sun".
    A description could fill a library and still not be complete.

    I think an exhaustive description is something that can't be got.
    (to paraphrase Bertrand Russell).
     
  9. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,232
    How can any of those be IN existence?

    You can't ''pin down'' everything James.
    Some things are beyond your thirst for control.

    ''Hang on, I may have some ultimate reality in my jacket pocket''.
    ''Sorry, it's my mobile phone''.

    Yes I say that all the time James. Even in this thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    jan.
     
  10. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,232
    What do they say?

    Why should that stop one from thinking the room was intelligently designed, meaning there is an outside, or at least another, bigger space? Because you would?

    They are fundamental positions Sarkus. It is because we are willing to address and explore issues, and questions, why we understand this. The human being either accepts or rejects God, before intellectualising what God means. It is natural, Sarkus.
    You already reject God, but you try to rationalise it.

    The point is, there is no point. It's simply sneaked in, and then somehow, becomes a factor.
    That's why you like to argue, using logic. Because you can throw any factor you like, to slow down the progress, and pretend the issue is unsolved.

    So how do you know you need knowledge to know that it is God?
    If with your knowledge, you cannot recognise God, meaning there is no God. How do you know God's revelation requires knowledge, to be accessed?

    That wasn't the question. Is it possible that God exists, but you are currently incapable of perception?
    I'm only asking if you think it is possible.

    Externally it may do. But theists don't believe in God, due to external forces. We understand that there is a connection.
    Atheist lack that understanding, and look externally for connections.

    You mean a ''gut feeling'', or go where the the ''fuzzy-wuzzy'' feeling, in our bellies, takes us?

    May be you've missed this, but I already believe God Is. and it wasn't because I concluded it was natural.
    My point is that if it is natural, then it will eventually play out the way it is supposed to. There will be God, those that accerpt and those that don't.

    Of course it does. Furthermore you know it does, which is why you have nothing to say on the matter, other than to attack me.
    The truth is, you don't know how to confront my line of reasoning, hence the attacks.

    How?
    Or do you mean the varying concepts of God?
    But what about God have you comprehended thus far?

    Where have stated God is a fact?
    If you think I imply it, then you also imply that external evidence is the only way to know if God exists.
    It boils down to our fundamental positions.

    Firstly, for you there is no God, because there is no evidence of God (despite your agnostic leanings).
    Hence you assume a priori that evidence is what is needed to ensure God exits.

    jan.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2017
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,438
    Here we see Jan pay lip service to "discussing anything we wish".

    Yet when he is pressed for it, we get:

    1] dodging, using weasel words:
    2] and then a direct claim that it can't be discussed:
     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,793
    Nothing that answers the question. Care to try again?
    One is entitled to think what they want, Jan, and no one is stopping them. I am merely pointing out that there is no logically sound reason to make the claim. Nor is there any way to prove the claim correct. At best one can deduce it as a possibility. But if they want to think and claim something is true without the means to logically or empirically support it... who am I to stop them.
    How can they be fundamental if it is possible for one person to move from believing to not believing?
    How can belief in God be fundamental when it relies on the a priori assumption that God exists (or God Is, to use your vernacular)?
    No, Jan, to be fundamental means to remain when everything else is stripped away. Strip away your a priori assumption and then see what is fundamental. But you can't do that, while others can. You have made your a priori assumption fundamental to you because of your unwillingness to explore without it.
    And you are wrong, in that I believed in God and rejection was the conclusion I reached only after critical thought. Sure, I put my belief in God to the test and found it wanting: unable to be sustained through the onslaught of critical thought.
    ??? Your inability to comprehend the argument from logic is no grounds for dismissing it, Jan. There is a point to it, Jan. One you have failed to address. Care to do so?
    I have no knowledge of God, Jan. I have knowledge of concepts of God, but nothing I can say is knowledge of God, because to claim it as knowledge of God (as opposed to merely the concept of God) requires there to be veracity to the claim... and I do not know if there is veracity to the claims. Hence have no knowledge of God.
    As for knowing that Gods revelation requires knowledge to be accessed, I don't. That would require having knowledge of God and how his revelations work.
    But if anyone can make revelations work without having knowledge, God would seem to be in as good a position as any to do so.
    [qupte]That wasn't the question. Is it possible that God exists, but you are currently incapable of perception?
    I'm only asking if you think it is possible.[/quote]I refer you to the answer I gave, which perfectly answers this question:
    "It has occurred to me that God does exist, and I accept it as a possibility that I am unable to recognise it, yes."
    In what way does this not answer your question???
    Externally and internally it does, Jan. Not just externally. To assume otherwise is again from the a priori assumption you hold.
    Not necessarily that, but just the unthinking mindless adherence and acceptance due to the environment one is raised in.
    Whether belief and non-belief in God is natural or not, it has no bearing on whether God eixosts or not, and nature will play out the same way whether God actually exists or not. There is no way to discern the difference between the theories while we are inside the locked room. All you can do is define God to be a necessary part of one theory, but the reality of that inclusion is not determined by that inclusion.
    Oh, for Pete's sake, Jan. You really are hitting rock bottom here. There is zero implication in the term atheist that God actually exists. There is every implication that "belief in God" exists. Sure, from a theist point of view they will se atheism as being the rejection of what the theist claims does exist, but the term atheism itself is simply the lack of belief in God, and as such, once the theist removes their a priori assumption, the term atheism has no such implication.
    Now, you can continue to argue your bullshit that it does, but all you are doing, demonstrably so, is shining your own a priori assumption of God's existence through the label. It is simply not inherent within the label.
    So enough with the crap, Jan.
    I am referring to the concepts, yes.
    Every time you claim that God Is.
    No, you can and do imply it without any such impcation from me. Where is this implication from me? Please show how what I have said logically leads to that implications?
    No, it boils down to you having an a priori assumption, and me not having it.
    If that understanding helps you sleep better, Jan. Pity you're only arguing against your strawman again.
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,438
    Wow. Did Jan just cite logic as a liability in an argument?

    There was a meme that went around a few months back where the Republicans were accusing the Libs of cheap underhanded tricks like "logic" and "facts" in their messages.
     
  14. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,232
    I'd prefer to be the judge of that. Thanks in advance.

    Who said anything about claiming it was true?

    How does that make it not fundamental.
    God Is, and there is, without God.
    God Is, is not affected by what we think.
    We can accept what we like, and acceptance leads to belief,
    or non belief.

    As far as you're aware, there is no God. What makes you think it relies on an a priori assumption, outside of your claim being an a priori assumption?

    Explore what?
    What did you have in mind?

    What conclusion?

    What was the test?

    So why ask for evidence of God?

    If belief in God is natural, why would you assume it has no bearing on existence?

    And back we come to the external, as opposed the internal and the external. You only see it from your perspective, which is lacking, due to your acceptance of atheism.

    ''Without God'', and ''lacking belief in God'', both imply God Is, but atheist's don't believe. If you use the words properly.

    No. Enough with the crap, Sarkus.
    You accuse me of making a priori assumptions, but fail, or refuse to recognise, you do exactly what I do. You defend your fundamental position, based on what you accept.
    For you there is no God, and you cannot understand, maybe even tolerate, those that believe in God. You want you perception to rule. But it is lacking, and others can see that.

    So what have you comprehended thus far?

    That's not claiming a fact. I believe God Is.
    For the purpose of argument or discussion, I play the positive role, against your negative role.

    Every time you ask for evidence, you imply that God can only be known in that way. That is your basic position, there is no God that you can see, so in order to show that God exists, there need to be specific evidence. Have you changed? Do you no longer require evidence in order to accept God's existence?

    I'm arguing against you Sarkus.
    The best defence you have is accusing me of creating a strawman. But everything I say about the base meaning of atheism, rings true. Because for any atheist, at all, there is no God. Fact. If it was not a fact, they would not be atheist.

    jan.
     
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,793
    You're sort of making my point for me, Jan. Reality is the judge of what is correct or not, Jan. At best you can just conclude on what you think is right. But my question remains unanswered by you: how do you know that it is correct?
    Do you really need me to walk you through how claiming to believe in God is claiming that the existence of God is true? Really? Or do you see this as just another example of me using my underhanded tactic of applying that pesky thing called logic?
    Or maybe you want me to go "oh, you didn't explicitly state it, and what you say can not possibly have any logical implications, therefore I can only go by what you explicitly state.
    Fundamental is what is there when everything else is stripped away. If it is possible to switch from belief to non-belief then it is possible to strip them away, thus non-fundamental.
    So you claim and believe.
    More accurately, the veracity of the claim "God Is" is not affected by what we think.
    Indeed, we can accept or not accept what we like, like not accepting an a priori assumption that God Is, nor an a priori assumption that God Isn't. You choose to accept an a priori assumption. That is your choice. It is not fundamental, because it is possible not to have that assumption. If you are genuinely unable to examine things wilt that a priori assumption then yes, it could be seen as fundamental to you. But fundamental to you does not make it fundamental to everyone.
    Furthermore, being fundamental in terms of how you build your worldview has no impact on the veracity or otherwise of that fundamental assumption.
    So your strawman undoubtedly would say. But I am not your strawman. Most atheists here are not aligned with your strawman. For the last time, Jan: as far as I'm aware there may or may not be a God. I can no more say that there is no God as I can say that there is a God. If you can't deal with that perspective then go and argue against someone else, but do not be so dishonest as to keep insisting that your strawman's view is mine.
    You mean other than you holding "God Is" to be your fundamental position, from which every part of your worldview springs while being unable to support the veracity of it other than through reliance upon that assumption?
    I'm not going to rehash old threads any more than I need to, Jan, and this thread is already rehashing old ground.
    Needless to say, can you comprehend the universe existing without "God Is" being the reality?
    Lack of belief in the existence of God(s).
    How do I know it is true, without begging the question?
    If someone is looking for a drink, they might ask for water, or lemonade, or beer, or milk...
    I ask for evidence of God where it is pertinent to do so, and in the context of the argument/discussion. I also might ask for a valid logical argument in support of the claim, and then ask how they might know that the argument is sound. (Or is that to one much"logic" for you?)
    But do I think evidence is the only way, the only possible means, to God? No. But perhaps your strawman does.
    Belief in superstitions are natural. Do you think throwing salt over your shoulder really brings you good luck? Or crossing your fingers does? Or a black cat crossing your path? Yet many believe those. And belief in superstition is natural.
    Thus being a natural belief is no arbiter of the veracity of the belief. Thus it has zero bearing on the actual existence or otherwise of God.
    You mean I see it without the filter of the a priori assumption that you admit is fundamental to your worldview? Yes, that much is correct.
    And back we are to you thinking you get to choose the definition, the usage, the implication of the label that people use for themselves.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Quite ironic given the thread title.
    From your theist perspective I can see how you might think that "without God" might be implying that God does actually exist, but this is simply your own assumption/belief being projected. But as has already been argued, X is a member of the set of things that does not exist. I am without X. As is everyone. But you think being without X implies X exists. A Jan paradox if ever I saw one. Or is that too much logic for you?

    As for "lacking belief in God" implying God exists... this has been explained to you time and time again. Still you refuse to acknowledge. Even if you do want "lack" to imply that what is lacking does exist then what is implied to exist is "belief in God", not God. This can not be so complex for you to understand that it surely can only be obstinate and wilful refusal to concede the point, and thus dishonest and trolling.
    If you think I have a fundamental position then tell me what mine is, Jan. Not what your strawman's is but mine. Every time you have said I have one you have simply spouted that of your strawman, against which most if not all your arguments seem to be focused. You don't listen to the person you're discussing with. You may think you're responding to them but you're just responding against your strawman.
    If that is the position of your strawman, who am I to argue.
    Anyone else see the irony in this sentence?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Do I want perception to rule? I'm certainly open to it not doing so. Heck, I've gone against my perception numerous times. But again, if this is your strawman's view...
    Far too much to write here, Jan, about various concepts.
    So you don't think that belief is something you think you know? You don't think it conforms with reality? Strange. There you are asserting that God Is and now you're not claiming it a fact. Or is your belief just a matter of probability? Are you genuinely open to the notion that God Isn't?
    No, Jan, I play my own role. Your strawman might play the negative role, though. Go and argue with him some more if that's what you want from this.
    Just as every time I ask for beer in a bar I imply that my thirst can only be quenched in that way.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
    I haven't changed, Jan, and I have been open to other things than evidence ever since I have visited this forum. A coherent sound logical argument would do. Can you muster one of those? Personal revelation would do. And there may be untold other ways that I do not yet know about. So why do you focus solely on the requests for evidence when people make them? Is that what your strawman limits himself to?
    Not that I can easily tell, you're not.
    My best defence is actually just to let you continue to argue against your strawman, as it does nothing to me. But I'm not here for that, and would much prefer you discuss with me, my actual position, not the one you insist I have.
    That thread was closed, Jan. If all you have to argue about is the definition of atheism and what you think it means to be an atheist, then you've just proven true all my points about you arguing a strawman.

    If you want, I can create another username "Jan's Strawman" (if the mods allow - which is doubtful) and I can try to be the atheist you want me to be?
    But unless and until you want to engage in actual discussion with me, or with the person actually engaging with you, it is of little use to anyone to continue.
     
  16. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,232
    I already answered. The same way anybody collects knowledge.

    Then believing one needs evidence to accept God is true, implies God does not exist, unless suitable evidence is presented.

    Belief is not the fundamental part. The ability to accept or deny is. You deny acceptance of God, and as a result, you lack God.

    If need to look at it from your own perspective, be my guest.

    You choose to call it an a priori assumption, because you need suitable evidence to accept God exists, otherwise there is no God. You assume that evidence is the only way for it to be known that God exists (a priori) .

    I accept that. But until suitable evidence lands in your lap, there is no God. Either God Is, or you are without God.

    You can say what you like.
    But there is no God as far as you're aware. If there were you could not be called atheist.

    I can pretend to. "I say, the universe exists without God".
    Now what?

    This is my point, you had already made the decision to not accept God. All you are doing now, is trying to justify it.

    What other ways, do you think can lead to acceptance of God?
    I believe such a belief can be both positive, and negative. Throwing salt over ones shoulder, or crossing ones fingers, can enhance one's performance. Or over-dependance can ones confidence.

    We're not talking about existence. At least I'm not. But you are. You can't accept God, because as far as you're aware God doesn't exist. My point is, you've already denied God., which is why God must exist in a suitable way for you to accept.

    I've accepted, you have denied. So here we are in our respective positions.

    Your natural denial/rejection is the filter. You're quite good at denial/rejecting.

    It's not my own assumption. It is based on the meanings of the word, and how they relate to all atheists.

    X can be anything you choose it be. X is not necessary, as we know what we are talking about.

    The proper meaning of atheism, implies that the atheist does not believe in God, and gives the reason why (without/lack belief in). These meanings perfectly match every single atheist, regardless of what they say. Hence there is no need to over analyse, by adding unknown factors.

    True. But you don't accept the claim of belief, because there is no God for you to believe in. That's the current reality you keep denying.

    It's not trolling. I've laid out my reasons as to why I believe I am correct. All you, or any atheist have done is deny, and attack.

    You have denied/rejected God.

    I get it, you must always have a defence mechanism in place, to keep on justifying your position, to yourself.
    But the reality is, as I have shown time and time again, there is no strawman.

    We are defining terms Sarkus.
    I don't need to listen to a politician to define what a politicians is. You don't need to listen to a theist to define what a theist is. So why do I need to listen to atheists define what atheist is?

    How convenient.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You tell me. You believe that suitable evidence is necessary to accept God.
    Same fundamental position, opposing option.

    I've explained my position as it relates to this discussion. I understand that there are, for the atheist, issues of existence regarding God. As in, God doesn't exist, because there is no evidence that support it's existence.
    So God, Isn't, as far as you're aware. You think that is the default position, because it feels natural to you. Everything you site, accept, believe, is based on that. That you think I could be currently open to such notions, is based entirely on that.

    You're the one the one who wants to take that notion and run with.
    For me, it is simple. ; there is God, and there is 'without God.

    I have done, on numerous occasions, but have been met with outright rejection, and denial. A characteristic that suits atheism.

    Like what?

    No it wouldn't. You will always ask for evidence, because God doesn't currently exist as far as you're aware.

    Jan.
     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,793
    Wow.
    Seriously??

    You know, Jan, I actually started responding to your post point by point (rather than dabble in your cherry-picking ways) but then I came to this response of yours. It really just sums up why further discussion with you is pointless, irrespective of my views on your dishonesty: you have already complained that I argue with logic (how dare I!), and here you are arguing that by choosing to not beg the question in search of answers that I have somehow already made the decision to not accept God.
    I say it again: wow!

    Are you finally admitting that the only reason you believe in God is through begging the question of his existence?


    Anyhoo - the majority of the rest of your post is just the inane prattle of you repeating your mantras against the strawman caricature of an atheist that you have created. Jan, when you can muster the decency to put down your strawman and start listening to and discussing with people who hold their own actual views, and stop reverting everything back to those views of your strawman, let me know. Until then I won't be wasting my time responding.
     
    Baldeee likes this.
  18. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,232
    I haven't complained about you arguing with logic. But adding factors just so that you can continue to make your points, rather than actually discuss the points I put forward, isn't logic. It's just another way for you to shift the goalposts.

    What question have I begged? It is natural to accept God, as it is natural to not accept God. That's the point I'm coming from.
    You seem to want to bring the discussion around to God's existence, thinking that I perceive God, the way you do.

    When I assert that God Is, I do it for the sake of discussion, just as somebody would assert that God isn't, God does not exist, or there is no evidence for God. They are all starting points. I do not need to provide proof, or evidence, anymore than the other claimants. So how you conclude that I am begging the question, I'm not entirely sure.

    You define atheist in one way, I define it in another. Your use of the term is superficial, meaning it is particularly suited to fit your persona. My use of the term is based on definitions, also from atheists like yourself. You claim that atheism is a lack of belief in God, so do I. The difference being, I use the correct meanings of the words, whereas you don't.

    jan.
     
  19. Ted Grant II Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    Suppose you had never seen an elephant nor learned anything of their appearance, habits etc. So you know nothing about elephants and you don't know they exist.
    Suppose someone you know has seen and studied elephants and has written a detailed description secretly and placed it in an envelope.
    Then, without giving you any details, they ask you to define an elephant, just as an intellectual exercise and write it down.
    Then you both compare the definition with the description from the envelope.
    I suspect they would be very different.

    I think the same about God.

    If God shows up, would we recognize him/her/it based on out invented definition of God ?
    You'd probably say things such as, "Oh dear, I didn't expect that, what a surprise, that's really disturbing, I really think that's not him."
     
  20. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,232
    Why do you assume it requires God to ''show up'', in order to be recognised?

    jan.
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    11,155
    Jan

    What is your understanding of god to you ?
     
  22. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,232
    I think I've already given you my understanding, to which you replied ''Abrahamic''.
    What do you mean by ''Abrahamic''?

    jan.
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    11,155
    Three basic religious foundations , jews , christians , islamic , in no partictular order of importance .
     

Share This Page