Can you *know* there is no God?


Recommended Posts

There seems to be a distinction between what is called hard and soft atheism. Hard atheism, as I understand it, is the claim that there is no God, soft atheism is the assumption that there isn't one.

A common objection to hard atheism would be: in order to know that there is no God, you'd have to know everything that is in the universe. How can you know that there isn't such a thing as God anywhere in this huge universe? How do you know it isn't possible?

I believe Objectivism answers such an attack on hard atheism in several ways:

1. by definition God is contradictory so you can know just as certainly that there isn't a God as that there aren't any round squares. This begs the question, how do you know that there are no round squares? how can you make a claim on knowledge past your context? I believe the Objectivist answer to this would be: a) the law of identiy b) knowledge is contextual. b) is to mean that in order to be certain of something, you must not have any reason to assume otherwise within your observable context.

2. onus of proof is on the one making the affirming statement. there is no God until you have reason to suspect the possibility of their being one. since not an iota of evidence of God has been given, we remain with the negative: there is no God. "innocent until proven guilty". this ties into 1b) within your given context, you cannot assume a god. but would any judge say: i know you are innocent? it would be strange to say that since there is a possibility that he is in fact guilty.

now to the question: can you know that there is no god? you might answer yes if the definition of god is contradictory on the grounds that no contradictions can exists. what, however, if the definiton of god is not in itself contradictory? such as: can you know there are no unicorns (those without superpowers)? according to point 2. you'd have to say yes because there is no evidence of them. but is it really proper to use the word "know" here? i mean it could be very possible that on some distant planet a thing that we'd call unicorn could exist?

it would seem proper to state: there are no unicorns, since you have no reason to say that there are. but does such a statement entail certainty and knowledge; same for a statement about the existence of a deity?

thanks for taking part in the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There seems to be a distinction between what is called hard and soft atheism. Hard atheism, as I understand it, is the claim that there is no God, soft atheism is the assumption that there isn't one.

A common objection to hard atheism would be: in order to know that there is no God, you'd have to know everything that is in the universe. How can you know that there isn't such a thing as God anywhere in this huge universe? How do you know it isn't possible?

I believe Objectivism answers such an attack on hard atheism in several ways:

1. by definition God is contradictory so you can know just as certainly that there isn't a God as that there aren't any round squares. This begs the question, how do you know that there are no round squares? how can you make a claim on knowledge past your context? I believe the Objectivist answer to this would be: a) the law of identiy b) knowledge is contextual. b) is to mean that in order to be certain of something, you must not have any reason to assume otherwise within your observable context.

2. onus of proof is on the one making the affirming statement. there is no God until you have reason to suspect the possibility of their being one. since not an iota of evidence of God has been given, we remain with the negative: there is no God. "innocent until proven guilty". this ties into 1b) within your given context, you cannot assume a god. but would any judge say: i know you are innocent? it would be strange to say that since there is a possibility that he is in fact guilty.

now to the question: can you know that there is no god? you might answer yes if the definition of god is contradictory on the grounds that no contradictions can exists. what, however, if the definiton of god is not in itself contradictory? such as: can you know there are no unicorns (those without superpowers)? according to point 2. you'd have to say yes because there is no evidence of them. but is it really proper to use the word "know" here? i mean it could be very possible that on some distant planet a thing that we'd call unicorn could exist?

it would seem proper to state: there are no unicorns, since you have no reason to say that there are. but does such a statement entail certainty and knowledge; same for a statement about the existence of a deity?

thanks for taking part in the discussion.

If one's notion of "God" logically implies a contradiction then that "God" cannot exist. If one's notion of "God" logically implies a proposition that is contrary to a known fact, then that "God" cannot exist with the same assurance as the fact it is contrary to.

If the notion of "God" is so general or unspecific that it cannot be tested empirically, then that notion of "God" is indeterminate. Since no contradiction or contarryness to fact has been displayed it cannot be denied outright, but neither can it be asserted with assurance. Verdict --- "up in the air"

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

mpp writes:now to the question: can you know that there is no god?

No.

You can believe there is no God, just as you can believe God exists. I regard both as being religions.

One is religion in the classical sense, while the other is secular leftist political religion. Politics is the foundation of secularism because government is god. Secular leftism is the fastest growing most powerful religion in the world. This is evidenced by the malignant growth of government all over the world... which is caused by a massive failure of people to properly live their own lives by decent values.

You can know God... but that is only through a real life personal experience of the reality of the Utterly Objective, which is not transferrable to others. In that experience each person is totally free to accept it or to deny it...

...for there is nothing more sacred than the power to choose.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

J,

God, please don’t use “begs the question” when what is meant is “invites the question” or “suggests the question.” The phrase “begs the question” should be reserved for its designation of the logical fallacy of that name. Hearing it in the other, misnomer way is for some readers like chalk grating on the blackboard (yes, more so with somewhat older readers most likely).

I know well enough there is no such thing as intelligence without life, without fallibility, and without ignorance. It’s not the same way of knowing as when we know by a mathematical theorem. But it’s as good as one’s knowing these letters are not lime juice.

Some religious thinkers have wisely thought of God as a living intelligence (Pseudo-Dionysus, Anselm, Avicenna, Albert, Aquinas, Luther, and the apostle Paul [Acts 14:15]). But all life is mortal; this we know more and more profoundly by modern biology and thermodynamics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you know there are no vampires, witches, and ghosts? Not absolutely. But all the serious and sound evidence indicates there are no such things. It's scientific and logical to conclude that "god" is 100% fiction, as are the three creatures above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To "know" is to directly experience evidence of. It's a sort of reverse-induction thing, of all that you did NOT see, nor hear nor touch (of God-ness) - going back to a toddler. And, everything else no matter how mysterious it looked, you always uncovered a causal and physical connection for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you know there are no vampires, witches, and ghosts? Not absolutely. But all the serious and sound evidence indicates there are no such things. It's scientific and logical to conclude that "god" is 100% fiction, as are the three creatures above.

At one time it was scientific and logical to assume there were no sub-atomic particles. It turns out that later evidence shows there are such particles. At one time it was scientific and logical to assume that space was completely filled with a transparent elastic substance aether, whose vibrations carried the light waves discovered by William Thompson and James Clerk Maxwell. Later on experiments by Michelson and Morley lead to the conclusion no such substance exists. What we think exists and does not exists depends very heavily on the evidence at hand, and that can change over time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you know there are no vampires, witches, and ghosts? Not absolutely. But all the serious and sound evidence indicates there are no such things. It's scientific and logical to conclude that "god" is 100% fiction, as are the three creatures above.

...and nothing will ever interfere with your free choice to deny.

Here's an interesting take on long odds...

...and just to be clear. I don't consider this to be anything approaching physical proof of God.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony writes:

To "know" is to directly experience evidence of. It's a sort of reverse-induction thing, of all that you did NOT see, nor hear nor touch (of God-ness) - going back to a toddler. And, everything else no matter how mysterious it looked, you always uncovered a causal and physical connection for.

That's correct, Tony.

There will never be a physical confirmation of God, just as there will never be a physical negation of God.

For either one would violate everyone's free choice.

The question of God can only be properly addressed by each of us in total personal freedom.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of atheism and "knowing there is no god" is complicated by the fact that in these discussions, "god" is typically defined in the terms of Abrahamic Monotheism (i.e. an omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent-omnibenevolent creator-god whom created all of existence ex nihilo blah blah blah).

THIS concept of god is logically impossible and thus I can be 100% sure that this entity, as described (or any entities with the same description) does not exist.

When we look at non-self-contradictory conceptions of god/s (I think a small number of branches of Christianity, including Mormonism, have conceptions of god which aren't self-contradictory, and the vast majority of neopagan faiths have non-self-contradictory ideas of god as well), then the atheist case shifts to the Burden Of Proof argument; I lack belief in these gods because I have seen no evidence that these gods exist. However, at least THEORETICALLY, these gods COULD exist... but that doesn't constitute evidence that they DO exist.

In other words, I am a Hard Atheist (and also an anti-theist but that's a different issue) with respect to Jehovah (and similarly-situated entities). I am a Soft Atheist with respect to Thor (and similarly-situated entities).

Link to post
Share on other sites

decadent writes:

THIS concept of god is logically impossible and thus I can be 100% sure that this entity, as described (or any entities with the same description) does not exist.

That's the religion you freely chose...

...and how your own life unfolds is the only accurate indicator possessing the power to convince you of the quality of your choice.

The universal characteristic of each of our subjective choices to either affirm or deny God is that there is absolutely no coercion involved.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

To "know" is to directly experience evidence of. It's a sort of reverse-induction thing, of all that you did NOT see, nor hear nor touch (of God-ness) - going back to a toddler. And, everything else no matter how mysterious it looked, you always uncovered a causal and physical connection for.

Some philosophers say knowledge is justifiable (in the inductive sense) true belief. X knows Y is X has seen evidence for Y, believes Y and it is true that Y. [Y here is a proposition]. X could believe Y without knowing Y. when Y is God this is the case.

Many of us believe everything has a cause but no one knows everything has a cause because no one has experienced or seen everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

J,

God, please don’t use “begs the question” when what is meant is “invites the question” or “suggests the question.” The phrase “begs the question” should be reserved for its designation of the logical fallacy of that name. Hearing it in the other, misnomer way is for some readers like chalk grating on the blackboard (yes, more so with somewhat older readers most likely).

I know well enough there is no such thing as intelligence without life, without fallibility, and without ignorance. It’s not the same way of knowing as when we know by a mathematical theorem. But it’s as good as one’s knowing these letters are not lime juice.

Some religious thinkers have wisely thought of God as a living intelligence (Pseudo-Dionysus, Anselm, Avicenna, Albert, Aquinas, Luther, and the apostle Paul [Acts 14:15]). But all life is mortal; this we know more and more profoundly by modern biology and thermodynamics.

Thank you Stephen. I really get annoyed by the phrase "begging the question" when "raising the question" is what is intended. In logic class "begging the question" is English for petito principii, i.e. assuming what is to be proved or assuming something that is equivalent to what is to be proved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a distinction between what is called hard and soft atheism. Hard atheism, as I understand it, is the claim that there is no God, soft atheism is the assumption that there isn't one.

A common objection to hard atheism would be: in order to know that there is no God, you'd have to know everything that is in the universe. How can you know that there isn't such a thing as God anywhere in this huge universe? How do you know it isn't possible?

I believe Objectivism answers such an attack on hard atheism in several ways:

1. by definition God is contradictory so you can know just as certainly that there isn't a God as that there aren't any round squares. This begs the question, how do you know that there are no round squares? how can you make a claim on knowledge past your context? I believe the Objectivist answer to this would be: a) the law of identiy b) knowledge is contextual. b) is to mean that in order to be certain of something, you must not have any reason to assume otherwise within your observable context.

2. onus of proof is on the one making the affirming statement. there is no God until you have reason to suspect the possibility of their being one. since not an iota of evidence of God has been given, we remain with the negative: there is no God. "innocent until proven guilty". this ties into 1b) within your given context, you cannot assume a god. but would any judge say: i know you are innocent? it would be strange to say that since there is a possibility that he is in fact guilty.

now to the question: can you know that there is no god? you might answer yes if the definition of god is contradictory on the grounds that no contradictions can exists. what, however, if the definiton of god is not in itself contradictory? such as: can you know there are no unicorns (those without superpowers)? according to point 2. you'd have to say yes because there is no evidence of them. but is it really proper to use the word "know" here? i mean it could be very possible that on some distant planet a thing that we'd call unicorn could exist?

it would seem proper to state: there are no unicorns, since you have no reason to say that there are. but does such a statement entail certainty and knowledge; same for a statement about the existence of a deity?

thanks for taking part in the discussion.

"soft atheism" as opposed to "hard atheism" or "strong atheism" is the refusal to believe in the existence of God for lack of convincing evidence that God exists. It is a refusal of belief, rather than a denial of existence. "soft atheism" is one manifestation of critical or rational skepticism. There are other manifestations of rational skepticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob writes:

Some philosophers say knowledge is justifiable (in the inductive sense) true belief. X knows Y is X has seen evidence for Y, believes Y and it is true that Y. [Y here is a proposition]. X could believe Y without knowing Y. when Y is God this is the case.

To know means to be intimate with.

To believe is intellectual masturbation.

It's ok to believe as long as you are aware that it isn't knowing.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob writes:

Some philosophers say knowledge is justifiable (in the inductive sense) true belief. X knows Y is X has seen evidence for Y, believes Y and it is true that Y. [Y here is a proposition]. X could believe Y without knowing Y. when Y is God this is the case.

To know means to be intimate with.

To believe is intellectual masturbation.

Greg

A physicist believes that physical laws are everywhere uniform. He cannot know it in the inductive or empirical sense because he has not been everywhere (and everywhen). But a physicists musty believe this or he could not do physics at all. It is a regulative belief, not a religious belief. Most of us believe the world is knowable. This is a belief because none of us has been in contact with ALL the world (i.e. all that exists), we presume that we can know it if we work hard enough and pay enough attention. That is far from intellectual jacking off. It is a necessary presumption to even set out to know that which is not yet known. One must believe he/she can do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob writes:

"soft atheism" as opposed to "hard atheism" or "strong atheism" is the refusal to believe in the existence of God for lack of convincing evidence that God exists. It is a refusal of belief, rather than a denial of existence. "soft atheism" is one manifestation of critical or rational skepticism. There are other manifestations of rational skepticism.

Refusal to believe, denial of existence, critical or rational skepticism are no different from any other religion, as all are based on the free choice of denial or affirmation.

Belief that something is not so is exactly the same as belief that something is so.

Neither are knowing.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

A physicist believes that physical laws are everywhere uniform.

That's because those physical laws were designed to operate universally just as moral law does.

In my work I stake my life on my belief that electricity always follows God's absolutely objective superbly designed logically ordered set of physical laws 100% of the time...

...and yet it's still belief.

It says in the Bible: "Be still and know that I AM." Knowing is an experience that has nothing to do with the incessant verbal chatter of the intellect. This is because it is not a function of our monkey minds.

Knowing is something else entirely.

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

A physicist believes that physical laws are everywhere uniform.

That's because those physical laws were designed to operate universally just as moral law does.

In my work I stake my life on my belief that electricity always follows God's absolutely objective superbly designed logically ordered set of physical laws 100% of the time...

...and yet it's still belief.

It says in the Bible: "Be still and know that I AM." Knowing is an experience that has nothing to do with the incessant verbal chatter of the intellect. This is because it is not a function of our monkey minds.

Knowing is something else entirely.

Greg

You wrote: That's because those physical laws were designed to operate universally just as moral law does.

Yes. By assumption and postulation, NOT by any a priori truth such as the law of non-contradiction nor by any inductive process, which is impossible since we cannot be everywhere and everywhen. We assume uniformity of law as an enabling assumption in order to do physics with general applicability.

Without this assumption, physics would be mere heuristic applicable to very small domains of experience.

Yes the laws were so -designed- and so designed by mortal men and women.

Physics is human made from start to finish. It did not come to us graven on Two Tablets of Stone from a High Mountain.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one's notion of "God" logically implies a contradiction then that "God" cannot exist.

This is so. Ae you able to state the reason in a few sentences as to why contradictions cannot exist? I'm struggling to put the thoughts into wording. Is there any "proof" that contradictions don't exists even or is the question in itself invalid? As in, if contradictions did exists, you didn't have such a thing as proof. All I can think of is that the statement is self-negating. But you offer any proof beyond that. Curious to hear your justification of this.

If one's notion of "God" logically implies a proposition that is contrary to a known fact, then that "God" cannot exist with the same assurance as the fact it is contrary to.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Let's say someone says: God is love. This notion contradicts our knowledge of what love is; namely a feeling caused by a specific set of chemicals which are released upon a conscious or automatic value judgement...or something like this. Now for God to be love you'd have to show that love isn't some feeling caused by chemicals and your mind, only then would you have grounds to assert the hypothesis that God is love.

If the notion of "God" is so general or unspecific that it cannot be tested empirically, then that notion of "God" is indeterminate. Since no contradiction or contarryness to fact has been displayed it cannot be denied outright, but neither can it be asserted with assurance. Verdict --- "up in the air"

Example: God is a being more intelligent than us. Now we don't know that if there are beings more intelligent then us and we don't know if they would be God etc. So we couldn't say they exist or don't exist. We wouldn't know they don't exists. But here is where my question applies. What does the verdict "up in the air" mean?

It means you make no judgment either way, but isn't this agnostic? So any definition of God that isn't contradictory or contradictory to an established fact would require us to be agnostics?

I find this hard to agree with. Since this position would invite scepticism: anything you cannot disprove, so any arbitrary yet noncontradictory assertion could be possible. how do you know your wife is really your wife and not a well-trainer twin? how do you know you're not currently living in a truman-show like reality recreation? how do you know there aren't any poisonous odourless gases in the air right now and you need to buy this air filter? all these assertions are baseless and to disprove would require the impossible proof of the negative. but it would seem insane to grant these assertions, as you'd walk a tightrope of what if and couldn't it be, you'd have no certainty about these things.

that's why i believe the objectivist answer is, if it's asserted without basis, you can reject it without basis. so the verdict wouldn't be "up in the air", but it woldn't be "wrong" either it would simply not be a valid question. a question about which you can not make a statement. but can you know it then? do you know your wife isn't a twin? it's metaphysically possible she is? i shouldn't think she is because you have no reason to assume it. but can you say you know she is your wife then? if yes, what's the definition of knowledge you use?

Link to post
Share on other sites

mpp writes:now to the question: can you know that there is no god?

No.

You can believe there is no God, just as you can believe God exists. I regard both as being religions.

One is religion in the classical sense, while the other is secular leftist political religion. Politics is the foundation of secularism because government is god. Secular leftism is the fastest growing most powerful religion in the world. This is evidenced by the malignant growth of government all over the world... which is caused by a massive failure of people to properly live their own lives by decent values.

You can know God... but that is only through a real life personal experience of the reality of the Utterly Objective, which is not transferrable to others. In that experience each person is totally free to accept it or to deny it...

...for there is nothing more sacred than the power to choose.

Greg

this is nonsense. the negative of something cannot be the same as the something. believing something to be is very different from believing something not to be. the onus of proof is on the positive, not the negative, assertion. you cannot equivocate government for god either. the only pararells you can draw would be of "psychoepistemological" nature, such as, that statists and theists operate from the same flawed thinking, etc.

well yes you can know god if you saw him in a concrete form or reached him with a rational abstraction from some other evidence in reality. but neither of this has happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

J,

God, please don’t use “begs the question” when what is meant is “invites the question” or “suggests the question.” The phrase “begs the question” should be reserved for its designation of the logical fallacy of that name. Hearing it in the other, misnomer way is for some readers like chalk grating on the blackboard (yes, more so with somewhat older readers most likely).

I know well enough there is no such thing as intelligence without life, without fallibility, and without ignorance. It’s not the same way of knowing as when we know by a mathematical theorem. But it’s as good as one’s knowing these letters are not lime juice.

Some religious thinkers have wisely thought of God as a living intelligence (Pseudo-Dionysus, Anselm, Avicenna, Albert, Aquinas, Luther, and the apostle Paul [Acts 14:15]). But all life is mortal; this we know more and more profoundly by modern biology and thermodynamics.

okay, but what if someone offered you a noncontradictory definition of god? would you know "well enough" then that it doesn't exists? do you know horses with a horn on the forehead do not exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, but what if someone offered you a noncontradictory definition of god? would you know "well enough" then that it doesn't exists? do you know horses with a horn on the forehead do not exist?

If some one gives a non-contradictory definition of X, then in the absence of evidence for X, the best we can say is that X is possible.

Example: The neutrino was postulated to save the law of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. It took 30 years to -find- the neutrino, i.e. produce empirical evidence that it exists.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you know there are no vampires, witches, and ghosts? Not absolutely. But all the serious and sound evidence indicates there are no such things. It's scientific and logical to conclude that "god" is 100% fiction, as are the three creatures above.

you just contradicted yourself. "not absolutely" and "conclude 100%".

To "know" is to directly experience evidence of. It's a sort of reverse-induction thing, of all that you did NOT see, nor hear nor touch (of God-ness) - going back to a toddler. And, everything else no matter how mysterious it looked, you always uncovered a causal and physical connection for.

what's "directly experience" and what's "evidence" here? the experience must be either concrete or abstract, otherwise you have sensualism.

so you mean, that because you didn't not see any evidence for god you don't know there is a god. okay, true, but do you know there is no god?

you don't know it is, but do you know it is not? these are different things.

Can you know there are no vampires, witches, and ghosts? Not absolutely. But all the serious and sound evidence indicates there are no such things. It's scientific and logical to conclude that "god" is 100% fiction, as are the three creatures above.

At one time it was scientific and logical to assume there were no sub-atomic particles. It turns out that later evidence shows there are such particles. At one time it was scientific and logical to assume that space was completely filled with a transparent elastic substance aether, whose vibrations carried the light waves discovered by William Thompson and James Clerk Maxwell. Later on experiments by Michelson and Morley lead to the conclusion no such substance exists. What we think exists and does not exists depends very heavily on the evidence at hand, and that can change over time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

at that one time, did scientists KNOW there are no sub-atomic particles? if there was no evidence to suggest their existence, you could say in their context they knew it. with growing context and thus evidence, they didn't know it anymore and had to allow the possibility and therefore were able to discover them.

yes the evidence can change at hand, but what does this say about certainty? are you saying because of this possibility of new evidence, we can never be certain of something? so there could one day be evidence of god, so you cannot know there is no god. or you say in my given context, with the evidence available, i can conclude there is no god and therefore i know there is no god. but it is a different understanding of the word "know".

The issue of atheism and "knowing there is no god" is complicated by the fact that in these discussions, "god" is typically defined in the terms of Abrahamic Monotheism (i.e. an omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent-omnibenevolent creator-god whom created all of existence ex nihilo blah blah blah).

THIS concept of god is logically impossible and thus I can be 100% sure that this entity, as described (or any entities with the same description) does not exist.

When we look at non-self-contradictory conceptions of god/s (I think a small number of branches of Christianity, including Mormonism, have conceptions of god which aren't self-contradictory, and the vast majority of neopagan faiths have non-self-contradictory ideas of god as well), then the atheist case shifts to the Burden Of Proof argument; I lack belief in these gods because I have seen no evidence that these gods exist. However, at least THEORETICALLY, these gods COULD exist... but that doesn't constitute evidence that they DO exist.

In other words, I am a Hard Atheist (and also an anti-theist but that's a different issue) with respect to Jehovah (and similarly-situated entities). I am a Soft Atheist with respect to Thor (and similarly-situated entities).

yes this encapsulates what I'm questioning. but what about other things in your life that could be theoretically possible, like the examples I've named: your wife could be a twin, there could be a in the long-term harmful gas in the air, you're being watched by aliens, etc. this position attacks the concept of certainty, and you couldn't be certain of almost anything. this is why I believe objectivism defines certainty contextual: if in your given context you have no evidence for it, the assertion is invalid. but does an invalid assertion mean you know it isn't so? that doesn't follow...

Link to post
Share on other sites

To "know" is to directly experience evidence of. It's a sort of reverse-induction thing, of all that you did NOT see, nor hear nor touch (of God-ness) - going back to a toddler. And, everything else no matter how mysterious it looked, you always uncovered a causal and physical connection for.

what's "directly experience" and what's "evidence" here? the experience must be either concrete or abstract, otherwise you have sensualism.

so you mean, that because you didn't not see any evidence for god you don't know there is a god. okay, true, but do you know there is no god?

you don't know it is, but do you know it is not? these are different things.

No, the direct "experience" is not abstract, the process is sensory and perceptual before it's conceptual. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, as someone said. Until then, and don't hold your breath, the 'god concept' is hearsay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now