mohsenhona

Why science cannot prove ‘There is no God’?

Rate this topic

81 posts in this topic

The popular belief regarding science is that it is only concerned with positing completely natural/physical explanations of phenomena.  This is known as methodological naturalism.  If methodological naturalism is true, then the domain of Science is restricted to purely physical phenomena only, and so it cannot make any claims regarding the existence or non-existence of supernatural phenomena.

The problem with methodological naturalism is that it makes science not about seeking truth, but about seeking physical explanations, and the 2 are not the same thing.  Now this is okay if you understand that the domain of science is restricted, and that there is more to things than what Scientific theories say.  You need to supplement your view of the world with correct philosophy and religion to gain a more complete picture of things.

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, appeal_to_heaven said:

That's not actually true.

Science does not prove hypotheses, it only attempts to falsify them.

Scientists believe that General Relativity is true, that quantum mechanics is true, that plate tectonics theory is true.  The idea that its just about falsification is a myth made famous by the philosopher Karl Popper.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, .InshAllah. said:

The problem with methodological naturalism is that it makes science not about seeking truth, but about seeking physical explanations, and the 2 are not the same thing.  Now this is okay if you understand that the domain of science is restricted, and that there is more to things than what Scientific theories say.  You need to supplement your view of the world with correct philosophy and religion to gain a more complete picture of things.

Another problematic issue is the definition of Universe, and how it is only related to physical reality. It seems that the realm of thoughts/feelings (Subjective) etc is not even included to this definition. It seems that whatever can be described mathematically and manifested by senses (Objectively) is included to Universe:

The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.[20][21][22] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy (including electromagnetic radiation and matter), and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic.[23][24][25]

Edited by Dhulfikar
.InshAllah. likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 30, 2016 at 11:20 PM, appeal_to_heaven said:

There is nothing about the scientific method which would permit such an inference.

The statement "There is no God" is not subject to falsification, meaning it is not a valid hypothesis and, by extension, not a scientific statement.

Simply put, science has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God.

Science narrowly concerns itself with the observable, measurable, and falsifiable and nothing else.

 

The invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster is falsifiable.  And so is a God who could possibly not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 30, 2016 at 11:46 PM, appeal_to_heaven said:

It's not a "fact" if it's possibly wrong.

Gravity is a fact.   And yet it can possibly be wrong.  Tomorrow we could possibly discover a thing that could defy the so called "law" of gravity.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are commenting against methodological naturalism, and I can see why people would.  But it should be noted that, you cannot demonstrate the existance of non physical things, ie a metaphysical world.  And so, even proposing that such a thing exists, that metaphysical things are existant, is really a hypothesis.

Science, in the sense of methodological naturalism, will always dominate over metaphysical hypotheses because one can be demonstrated in a laboratory, the other can only be pondered in the mind. Though, I do agree with those who stated that, just because science can demonstrate truth in physical reality, it doesnt mean that there arent things that exist beyond what is physically apparent. So perhaps there are real metaphysical things, but we really wouldnt know for sure just because there is no way we could experience them.  Only in our minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to gravity, or i suppose we could just say general relativity, it could only be wrong in the sense that newtonian physics were wrong.  That is to say, that it is and always will be truth in some scenarios, but with expanding knowledge, we discover areas beyond its means of usefulness. 

Sort of like a regular chair.  A regular every day chair, in truth will always be an object that we can sit on.  But if we were to discover 100 foot tall people that weighed 5000 pounds, the usefulness of that chair wouldnt exist and we would say that it is...a flawed chair.

So, general relativity and newtonian physics will never be..."wrong", they will always hold true.  It is just that, their truths are in regards to specific areas of experience and physical reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

People are commenting against methodological naturalism, and I can see why people would.  But it should be noted that, you cannot demonstrate the existance of non physical things, ie a metaphysical world.  And so, even proposing that such a thing exists, that metaphysical things are existant, is really a hypothesis.

Science, in the sense of methodological naturalism, will always dominate over metaphysical hypotheses because one can be demonstrated in a laboratory, the other can only be pondered in the mind. Though, I do agree with those who stated that, just because science can demonstrate truth in physical reality, it doesnt mean that there arent things that exist beyond what is physically apparent. So perhaps there are real metaphysical things, but we really wouldnt know for sure just because there is no way we could experience them.  Only in our minds.

Science by itself cannot demonstrate the existence of anything.  We say things like 'Science proves the existence of subatomic particles' but that is only if we assume metaphysical truths such as:  the external physical world is real, we aren't dreaming/hallucinating etc.  A lab experiment doesnt prove much if the lab is just a dream.  In other words, Science presupposes metaphysical truths.  If these are unjustified then the claims of Science are unjustified.

So either you need to expand your beliefs regarding what can and cannot be 'proven', or else you shouldnt believe in the claims of science.  

Dhulfikar likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, .InshAllah. said:

Science by itself cannot demonstrate the existence of anything.  We say things like 'Science proves the existence of subatomic particles' but that is only if we assume metaphysical truths such as:  the external physical world is real, we aren't dreaming/hallucinating etc.  A lab experiment doesnt prove much if the lab is just a dream.  In other words, Science presupposes metaphysical truths.  If these are unjustified then the claims of Science are unjustified.

So either you need to expand your beliefs regarding what can and cannot be 'proven', or else you shouldnt believe in the claims of science.  

Yea fair enough.  There is a form of baseline assumptions that come with just about any thought we have.

Dhulfikar and .InshAllah. like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this statement of fact that the word is not the thing, whether that thing is a thing strictu sensu or an idea or a feeling or anything else. You take an apple and you ask what is this and those who speak English will say that an apple and those speak other languages will use the term corresponding to it. And the fact is still is that the word used in any language is not that object or thing or stuff that is called "apple" in the English language. Exactly the same applies to the term god, and so anything we say or we think is by definition false, because no body can know anything about the thing in itself and it remains just about what can be touched and manipulated through science, i.e., through our minds. I do believe in god because otherwise absolutely nothing has any sense and this life is not worth anything. I find that all the essentials that are needed are in the quran, and so some people will believe and have faith and others will not. It has always been like this and it will therefore probably always remain like this, until the end of time. 

I frankly even tend to believe that science itself is just pure illusion. It allows us to get whatever it allows us to get in this world, and we may call this that it allows to get "power", whether it is over nature or over each other. I sometimes believe that science has given humanity more harm than good, but I'm not really sure because I consider seeking knowledge as an essential eibada. And that said all I can say is allahu aalam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have to distinguish between knowledge and science. Science is a tool of observation, experimentation and analyzing which now is used in human sciences like sociology, political science and so on. But there are many things that can’t be measured by science like the existence of God, wisdom and so on.

So Science is the study of the physical and natural world, but Allah isn’t limited to physical world. For knowing the existence of Allah or non-existence, the attributes of Allah and so on we need other ways like intellect, narrations, revelation, Sayings of infallible Imams and so on which is called knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello dear. 

In fact, the existence of God is so obvious that it does not need science :

The ways to knowing and comprehending God can be summed up in the following ways:

1. Reason and intellect, like the argument of the necessary and possible being.

2. Through experimentation and sensation, such as the argument from design.

3. The way of the heart or the argument of fitrah (genesis, innate disposition towards virtue and knowledge)[ii],[iii]

The easiest and the best way to understand and know God is the argument of fitrah whereby a person refers to his own God-gifted nature as well as to his inward where he sees God without any rational argument or any experimentation. Thus he reaches God through the way of the heart.

 

 - Just because this way utilizes experimentation doesn’t mean it is devoid of any reasoning and rationality, what is meant when it is said that it is experimental is that one of the premises of the argument is such, which is to observe the different phenomena of this world.

[ii] - Ma’arefe Eslami, vol. 1, pg. 41

[iii] -  For further information see: Understanding God; Adopted from Question 479 (website:520.

http://www.islamportal.net/question/who-god-and-how-it-possible-prove-his-existence‎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 04/05/2016 at 4:50 PM, mohsenhona said:

1. Science Doesn’t Have Absolute Knowledge

 

When you talk with atheists, and you ask them to prove that there’s no God, most will tell you that it’s logically impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist.

 

And they are absolutely correct!

 

2. It’s fascinating to note that the best argument for the existence of God comes from science itself.

 

3. Everything that was brought into existence had a cause

 

The universe began to exist at a certain point in time.

 

Since we know that it’s impossible that the universe created itself, then it must have had a Creator.

 

When atheists ask, “Well then, who created God? Someone must have created Him too.”

 

Then I answer, “No one created God. He is eternal, He has always existed.”

 

There must always be an uncaused first cause that created everything that began to exist.

 

4. You can’t measure God through science.

 

Science is the study of the physical and natural world.

 

But God, by definition, is not limited to the physical and natural world.

 

In fact, God lives outside of time and space.

 

Believe in God, He exists, and He loves you.

This argument is very weak. Not only is the burden of proof on who makes the claim, but it is practically impossible to prove a negative.

If you don't understand why, then here is an analogy:

A: I have a bunch of dancing and singing monkeys in my backyard, but I am the only one who can see and hear them. Prove me wrong.

B: *speechless*

Similarly, when you believe in God and tell us to prove he does not exist, we simply can't. 

Also, you can never disprove atheism, as atheism is lack of belief (i.e religion), and not the lack of a God. TL;DR God may probaby exist to some atheists and this question would he rendered redundant.

Edited by Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fish said:

This argument is very weak. Not only is the burden of proof on who makes the claim, but it is practically impossible to prove a negative.

If you don't understand why, then here is an analogy:

A: I have a bunch of dancing and singing monkeys in my backyard, but I am take his he only one who can see and hear them. Prove me wrong.

B: *speechless*

Similarly, when you believe in God and tell us to prove he does not exist, we simply can't. 

Also, you can never disprove atheism, as atheism is lack of belief (i.e religion), and not the lack of a God. TL;DR God may probaby exist to some atheists and this question would he rendered redundant.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God. Atheism could easily be disproved through rationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hassan Y said:

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God. Atheism could easily be disproved through rationalism.

Please do disprove it.

Few rules though:

1. No Quran

2. No Hadith

3. No other religions' holy book or hadiths' equivalent.

4. Prove the need to have a religion, not the incompletion of science.

5. Prove said religion must be Islam.

Genuinely intrigued, I have been struggling with my faith for a while, if it is as easy as you make it seem, give it your best shot. Might be given has an at for converting a faithless brother.

Ali.Isa likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 minutes ago, Fish said:

Please do disprove it.

Few rules though:

1. No Quran

2. No Hadith

3. No other religions' holy book or hadiths' equivalent.

4. Prove the need to have a religion, not the incompletion of science.

5. Prove said religion must be Islam.

Genuinely intrigued, I have been struggling with my faith for a while, if it is as easy as you make it seem, give it your best shot. Might be given has an at for converting a faithless brother.

We know God exists because we know that every effect has a cause. Science can only explain the origin of the universe such as the big bang, but cannot explain what caused the big bang or what existed before it. So logically speaking, there has to be a creator that can't be created in order to create our existence. I'll give you an example:

1. Imagine a chain of domino blocks of lets say 1,000,000 pieces
2. Once you see the domino number (n) dropping, you will naturally conclude that this dropping was caused by the domino number (n-1) falling, hitting our domino and causing it to drop.
3. Also logically we have to conclude that first the domino (n-2) dropped and hit the domino (n-1) which eventually caused our domino block to fall.
4. The chain goes on and on until you reach the ever first domino block.
5. The critical question here is, what caused the very first domino to fall?
6. The cause of the very first domino block to fall, was something, anything but a domino block... it could have been your finger, a wind, another object... but whatever it might be, it certainly was from a substance different than the domino blocks.
7. This initial cause (e.g. finger) which caused the first domino to fall and hence triggered the the whole chain reaction of the dominos is GOD

generalization to our realm

1. Our existence (be it a universe or multiverse, matter, antimatter, energy, dark energy...) is like the domino blocks in our previous example.
2. The very first cause, which caused the first point of our existence (e.g. big bang, genesis, initial singularity, point of creation...) is GOD (just like the finger or the breeze)
3. Just like the example above, this very first cause is not from the substance of the existence (just like when your finger was in essence and substance different from the domino blocks)
4. Our existence is based on principles such as space, time, cause, effect, quality, quantity... and since this initial cause is in its substance different from our existence hence these principles are not relevant to it. 
5. In another words, the initial cause to our existence (i.e. GOD) is not dependent to principles which define our existence 
(i.e. space, time, quantity, quality, cause, effect...)
5. In another words, the initial cause (i.e. GOD) is not bound to space, time... is not quantifiable and has no qualities... basically God has no quantity (i.e. God in its essence is not 1, or 2 or 3 or 1000..., God is not Big or small, or wise or happy or sad... God is not here or there, God was not before or is after...)
Final conclusion:
Asking of what caused God, or where is God, or how is time relevant to God are illogical questions since God is not from the essence of the existence to be bound by such principles.
In another words, The answer to what caused God, is an illogical question.

Edited by Hassan Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

We know God exists because we know that every effect has a cause. Science can only explain the origin of the universe such as the big bang, but cannot explain what caused the big bang or what existed before it.

Actually, some astrophysicists argue that a very simple premise - a nothing of some sorts - use to exist prior to space and the sort, and this 'nothing' split into equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, kind of like an equation where 0 = 0, you can add, multiply and do what ever you want as long as it is done to both sides. Logically this is pretty viable. The matter and anti-matter react together, boom! Big Bang.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

So logically speaking, there has to be a creator that can't be created in order to create our existence.

Not necessarily, but once again, probably.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

1. Imagine a chain of domino blocks of lets say 1,000,000 pieces
2. Once you see the domino number (n) dropping, you will naturally conclude that this dropping was caused by the domino number (n-1) falling, hitting our domino and causing it to drop.
3. Also logically we have to conclude that first the domino (n-2) dropped and hit the domino (n-1) which eventually caused our domino block to fall.
4. The chain goes on and on until you reach the ever first domino block.
5. The critical question here is, what caused the very first domino to fall?
6. The cause of the very first domino block to fall, was something, anything but a domino block... it could have been your finger, a wind, another object... but whatever it might be, it certainly was from a substance different than the domino blocks.
7. This initial cause (e.g. finger) which caused the first domino to fall and hence triggered the the whole chain reaction of the dominos is GOD.

You could very well be right. Maybe we had this metaphorical finger that dropped the first metaphorical domino, but that doesn't mean he still cares about his dominos after 3.4 billion years.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

generalization to our realm

1. Our existence (be it a universe or multiverse, matter, antimatter, energy, dark energy...) is like the domino blocks in our previous example.

I like to believe our universe is more complex, but for argument's sake I'll concede.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

2. The very first cause, which caused the first point of our existence (e.g. big bang, genesis, initial singularity, point of creation...) is GOD (just like the finger or the breeze)

Now you leaped a leap of faith. Maybe a God, not the God though. Maybe even no God. The keyword here is maybe, and I am open to all maybe's.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

3. Just like the example above, this very first cause is not from the substance of the existence (just like when your finger was in essence and substance different from the domino blocks).

So the creator is independent of the creation. Logic I could get behind quite easily.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

4. Our existence is based on principles such as space, time, cause, effect, quality, quantity... and since this initial cause is in its substance different from our existence hence these principles are not relevant to it. 

Okay, still with you. 

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

5. In another words, the initial cause (i.e. GOD) is not bound to space, time... is not quantifiable and has no qualities... basically God has no quantity (i.e. God in its essence is not 1, or 2 or 3 or 1000..., God is not Big or small, or wise or happy or sad... God is not here or there, God was not before or is after...)

Yes. If there is an omnipotent being, I can understand why and how he is so contrary to our laws and still not contradicting them. My question is, is this person out there?

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

Final conclusion:
Asking of what caused God, or where is God, or how is time relevant to God are illogical questions since God is not from the essence of the existence to be bound by such principles.
In another words, The answer to what caused God, is an illogical question.

I have none of these questions. I can very easily understand how an omnipotent being can be contrary to our everything and not contradict them either. My questions were to prove there is a God and to prove it is Islam's God.

Edited by Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Fish said:

Actually, some astrophysicists argue that a very simple premise - a nothing of some sorts - use to exist prior to space and the sort, and this 'nothing' split into equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, kind of like an equation where 0 = 0, you can add, multiply and do what ever you want as long as it is done to both sides. Logically this is pretty viable. The matter and anti-matter react together, boom! Big Bang.

If that single premise of nothing split into equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, than that premise can't be 'nothing', it has to be 'something'. Every astrophysicists agrees that something can't exist out of nothing, and this is common logic. Matter and anti-matter need a cause for them to exist, and like what I said previously, our existence is based on cause and effect where anything that exists must have a cause.

 

1 hour ago, Fish said:

Not necessarily, but once again, probably.

Actually Gods existence is necessary for our existence to even exist, and this is where cause and effect comes into play. Everyone that exists is dependant on a predecessor, and that predecessor is dependant on another predecessor, and so on till we reach the universe being the predecessor of our existence. Our universe is finite, and a finite universe is one in which indefinite regression of finite causation would have to be occurring, but this is impossible due to each cause needed a cause, and that would result in infinite regression. The chain reaction would need a beginning for there to be a valid explanation for our existence because infinite regression is a never ending of finite causes that would make it impossible for our universe to exist due to the chain reaction never reaching us as there would be an infinite of waiting. In such a case, we logically wouldn't exist. Therefore there must be an 'infinite cause' which was not caused by anything before it or after it that started the chain reaction. Something which has no predecessor and ignited all the finite causes. There has to be the need for an Infinite Being that is the source of all things, relying upon nothing, outside all constraints that define a thing to be finite (time, and all other dimensions). Indeed, direct understanding of God is not possible for a finite being, but what I have spoken on does not rely on direct understanding or limitation upon God, rather it demonstrates an evident necessity for the existence of such a Being to sufficiently explain finite existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

If that single premise of nothing split into equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, than that premise can't be 'nothing', it has to be 'something'. Every astrophysicists agrees that something can't exist out of nothing, and this is common logic. Matter and anti-matter need a cause for them to exist, and like what I said previously, our existence is based on cause and effect where anything that exists must have a cause.

If Nothing can come out of Nothing then there must always have been something.

Here is something I posted earlier with regards to infinite regress:

The universe is neither a cause nor an effect. It consists of all causes and effects. 
It is the collection of all physical things. As long as anything existed a universe existed. 

The Big Bang is is an event that happened to existing matter, it is the point where the universe became as it is now, not the point where everything began.  

The Big Bang indicates a boundary of where we can start  "measuring" ; it is nonsensical to extend causality to a time prior to the Big Bang, infinite regress is not an issue because there is nothing to measure prior it. 

The lowest common denominator of all things in the universe is physical energy which (according to the laws of Physics) can neither be created nor destroyed  ...therefore it has no beginning, it is eternal. 
The property of Energy/Matter is to constantly change form, basic elements combine and recombine into more complex structures using energy as a catalyst.

(If Energy/Matter keeps changing state, expanding, contracting, monoblock, that's infinite iterations, not infinite regress.)

Infinite regress or traversing the infinite is speculative philosophy, not physics.

In physics, the idea of cause-effect relationships just doesn't describe reality very well. In fact, it isn't even clear that the traversal of time is anything but an illusion. 
For example, in General Relativity, space-time is described as a single entity (called a manifold). This entity doesn't traverse time, and neither does anything within it. It just exists across all time and space. 
A photon has no sense of time. It can traverse any distance in no time whatsoever, with respect to its reference frame.

Therefore a more Virtuous argument would be to say that because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, but must always have had 'Being'. In other words, the existence of matter and energy is the 'default' of existence. 'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction.

All that aside, what I think Fish was asking is ...Why is a first cause divine and how does it translate into the God of Islam?
 

wslm.

*

Edited by Quisant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Quisant said:

If Nothing can come out of Nothing then there must always have been something.

Here is something I posted earlier with regards to infinite regress:

The universe is neither a cause nor an effect. It consists of all causes and effects. 
It is the collection of all physical things. As long as anything existed a universe existed. 

The Big Bang is is an event that happened to existing matter, it is the point where the universe became as it is now, not the point where everything began.  

The Big Bang indicates a boundary of where we can start  "measuring" ; it is nonsensical to extend causality to a time prior to the Big Bang, infinite regress is not an issue because there is nothing to measure prior it. 

The lowest common denominator of all things in the universe is physical energy which (according to the laws of Physics) can neither be created nor destroyed  ...therefore it has no beginning, it is eternal. 
The property of Energy/Matter is to constantly change form, basic elements combine and recombine into more complex structures using energy as a catalyst.

(If Energy/Matter keeps changing state, expanding, contracting, monoblock, that's infinite iterations, not infinite regress.)

Infinite regress or traversing the infinite is speculative philosophy, not physics.

In physics, the idea of cause-effect relationships just doesn't describe reality very well. In fact, it isn't even clear that the traversal of time is anything but an illusion. 
For example, in General Relativity, space-time is described as a single entity (called a manifold). This entity doesn't traverse time, and neither does anything within it. It just exists across all time and space. 
A photon has no sense of time. It can traverse any distance in no time whatsoever, with respect to its reference frame.

Therefore a more Virtuous argument would be to say that because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, but must always have had 'Being'. In other words, the existence of matter and energy is the 'default' of existence. 'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction.

All that aside, what I think Fish was asking is ...Why is a first cause divine and how does it translate into the God of Islam?
 

wslm.

*

I never said nothingness once existed, that would contradict God's existence. Something always has existed and that would be God, but what I was saying is if there was no God than nothingness will remain nothing for eternal and we wouldn't have ever existed.

Energy is not eternal. The law of conservation of energy states that total energy of an isolated system cannot change or be destroyed. The isolated system is our finite universe, so this means energy itself cannot be eternal. We do not know if energy existed before the big bang or what caused the big bang. All physical laws can only be applied after the big bang not before it, and everything that exists in this universe (matter & energy) are all 13.8 billion years old, in other words they are finite. Because the universe and all its matter, energy and physical laws that are in it are finite, than by logic there has to be cause(s) to have caused our universe. It's just that simple. If our universe was eternal or independent on a cause, not only would that contradict logic, but why would astrophysicists create the multiverse theory? That would contradict there whole theory. A lot of astrophysicists are fully aware of the fact that our universe does indeed require a cause to exist, so to fill in the gap they created the multiverse theory. 

In order to explain how God is the God if Islam, Fish must believe in the existence of God first and understand the necessity of His existence.

 

Edited by Hassan Y

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.