Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Quisant said:

Consider this: if God creates the universe "out of His own being or mind”, that means the universe (or the 'raw material of the universe’) is eternal in the sense that (the raw material of) the universe is God's being. It didn't begin.
(This would also contradict God's reputation of unchanged and unchangeable)

If God creates out of 'pre-existing' material it means that something was already there.

In either case you cannot say that the universe began, you can say that 'stuff' was transformed from one state to another. 

Therefore, your premise that 'Everything that has a beginning has a cause' and that 'The universe began'...is flawed from the very start.

 

Furthermore, positing a God to explain the existence of the singularity solves nothing. 

Now you've just got someone else you have to explain the existence of, and what's worse is you have no actual evidence this person actually exists apart from conjecture that maybe it might explain the existence of the singularity. 

Also according to your logic there has to be a super-creator to explain the existence of this hypothetical creator, and another super-duper creator to explain the existence ... well, you get the picture. Turtles all the way down.
 

See you tomorrow.

wslm

*

 

Why you're putting so much efforts in let me assume a specific scenario? I am just asking you to clarify your statement "nothing begins to exist".

:) and it appears that you're struggling to explain your point of view.

I just refered you kalam cosmological argument because of the similarity of your stayement and the premise 1 of kalam argument which says that "whatever begins to exist has a cause", explaining this premise Craig said "the first premise is self-evidently true, being based upon the Causal Principle that "something cannot come into being from nothing", or "Ex nihilo nihil fit", originating from Parmenideanphilosophy. He attests that this is a critically important first principle of science."

while you were denying the premise of that argument by saying "nothing begins to exist" & referring the same law of casualty.

Here is a video for you, watch it & enjoy:

 

So can you please try to elaborate as to why "nothing" begins to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Quisant said:


Big bang cosmology, a by-product of theoretical physics, infers the existence of a singularity which expanded into our universe but currently does not have the means to explain the nature of the singularity.

What we do know is this: The universe is composed of matter and energy that is constantly being rearranged in different ways. Nothing actually "begins to exist." Everything results from rearrangement of matter and energy already in existence. It is illogical to go from that to the conclusion that "therefore a Creator exists''.

There are no basis for the claim that the universe requires a cause external to itself. It is merely a philosophical/metaphysical assertion. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
 

wslm.

*

Your thoughts? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

Why you're putting so much efforts in let me assume a specific scenario? I am just asking you to clarify your statement "nothing begins to exist".

:) and it appears that you're struggling to explain your point of view.

I just refered you kalam cosmological argument because of the similarity of your stayement and the premise 1 of kalam argument which says that "whatever begins to exist has a cause", explaining this premise Craig said "the first premise is self-evidently true, being based upon the Causal Principle that "something cannot come into being from nothing", or "Ex nihilo nihil fit", originating from Parmenideanphilosophy. He attests that this is a critically important first principle of science."

while you were denying the premise of that argument by saying "nothing begins to exist" & referring the same law of casualty.

Here is a video for you, watch it & enjoy:

You want me to watch a video made by a professional Christian apologist?

 

My point of view is quite simple, you mention Parmenides - Nothing comes from nothing.

That is if there was ever nothing, nothing would always exist. So there logically Must have always been something.

Why is " nothing" your default position? 
Why should there be "nothing" when there is something?  Can you explain that to me?


The logic behind asserting that there must be a First Cause is based on the premise that everything needs a cause. 
From that initial point, it is posited that there must be a first cause that initiated everything. 
 
Here's where the contradiction comes in. At this point it is claimed that the first cause is exempt from the line of reasoning that required it initially, hence invalidating the initial assertion that everything must have a cause. 

 

Furthermore, the biggest problem with all cosmological arguments is that the final step - identifying the first cause with God - is not justified at all.
Why does the first cause have to be intelligent? Why does it have to be supernatural? 
How do you identify that First Cause with God? Please elaborate.
 

8 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

Your thoughts? 

I am not quite sure what you expect, I will give you my view:


A 'fact' is a tidbit of knowledge with an associated high degree of certainty. 
A ‘theory’ is a hypothesis backed by evidence. 
'Knowledge' is information obtained through observation and inductive reasoning. 
Knowledge with a low degree of certainty is a 'hypothesis'. 
An 'opinion' is a preference.

More about theory here:

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gravity-still-technically-just-a-theory

wslm
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Quisant said:

That is if there was ever nothing, nothing would always exist. So there logically Must have always been something.

There was always God forever and if you think that there was "always nothing" then you would not have seen "anything".

Nothing produces nothing. God was always there and instead of saying nothing you should say "God'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Quisant said:

At this point it is claimed that the first cause is exempt from the line of reasoning that required it initially, hence invalidating the initial assertion that everything must have a cause.

Exactly, God does not need to have a cause but "Creation" does. The reason of this is that "Creation" is mortal and bound to change while "God" is "eternal" and "not bound to change".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Furthermore, the biggest problem with all cosmological arguments is that the final step - identifying the first cause with God - is not justified at all.
Why does the first cause have to be intelligent? Why does it have to be supernatural? 

First cause need to be supernatural because of following reasons:

1. He creates which is work according to physics and every work which needs to be done must have an intelligence to make that work to happen according to physics.

2. He has to be more powerful than entire creation so that none of them can resist Him so it shows He is supernatural because He is controlling nature. 

Share this post


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

That is if there was ever nothing, nothing would always exist. So there logically Must have always been something.

Why is " nothing" your default position? 

Correction please, Who told you that our default position is "nothing"?  

A man once asked question to Imam " Can we call god a thing (shay)", Imam replied, yes but like Him there is nothing (laitha kamithlehe shay).

"Nothingnessess" does not exist, as per my belief. "Kullo mun alaiha faan, wa yabqa wajhu Rabbeka Thuljalale wal Ikraam"

53 minutes ago, Quisant said:

The logic behind asserting that there must be a First Cause is based on the premise that everything needs a cause. 
From that initial point, it is posited that there must be a first cause that initiated everything. 
 
Here's where the contradiction comes in. At this point it is claimed that the first cause is exempt from the line of reasoning that required it initially, hence invalidating the initial assertion that everything must have a cause. 

It is not any contradiction at all, otherwise, everything has no beginning or end, nothing begins to exist. Which is not the case, things do begins to exist.

 Something cannot comes from nothing dictates the law of casualty and that very law requires for itself a first uncaused cause.

Edited by Salsabeel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

Exactly, God does not need to have a cause but "Creation" does. The reason of this is that "Creation" is mortal and bound to change while "God" is "eternal" and "not bound to change".  

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. 
Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

2 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

It is not any contradiction at all, otherwise, everything has no beginning or end, nothing begins to exist. Which is not the case, things do begins to exist.

 Something cannot comes from nothing dictates the law of casualty and that very law requires for itself a first uncaused cause.

Just because things inside the universe behave with a certain level of causality, you cannot assume that that applies to whatever "structure" gave rise to the universe. 

If (as you admit) "things can't self causate"  ..then something must have always existed. (In my logic.) 

For me a "more 'virtuous' argument is the one that says 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". 

The Big Bang is no more a "beginning" than any arbitrary selected point on any line is a "beginning."  It is a point in a line of changes; variations on existing energy and matter.

It is the point where the universe became as it is now, not the point where the universe began.   

We'll soon end up talking past each other, so...let's agree to disagree.

Thanks for talking to me.
All the best.
*  
 

Edited by Quisant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. 
Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.

There is always an exception: Human beings create automobiles, cars and etc, but they do not fall into the category of inanimate things that are created from the industrial stuff, however, being animate and soul and also mortality signifies that they are created by someone. And that is a general rule and not an special pleading "everyone has a creator" except "creator". That is where you will end.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, Quisant said:

If (as you admit) "things can't self causate"  ..then something must have always existed. (In my logic.) 

For me a "more 'virtuous' argument is the one that says 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". 

Things cannot cause themselves, a procedure causes them and it involves ingredients and an intellect. 

Things which are susceptible to change  are not eternal as you say about "Matter". You fail at the point when you accept that matter changes and since matter changes, it may be established that it came from another thing which you are unaware about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Quisant said:

The Big Bang is no more a "beginning" than any arbitrary selected point on any line is a "beginning."  It is a point in a line of changes; variations on existing energy and matter.

 

There was no sign of energy, space, time and matter before the Big Bang explosion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Quisant said:

If (as you admit) "things can't self causate"  ..then something must have always existed. (In my logic.) 

:) yes, something must always existed and that something is existing at this very moment & will remain existing. This is called perfection in existence.

Like that thing there is nothing. 

28 minutes ago, Quisant said:

For me a "more 'virtuous' argument is the one that says because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, 

"Matter & Energy are eternal" this is your new claim after "nothing begins to exist".

At least Matter is not eternal. We know how it annihilate & release energy.

Now for Energy, let me know what is it? 

Ability to do work or E=mc2 or what? 

Secondly, we need to see the singularity once again. That hot & dense state which expanded rapidly.

I want to know if you have any idea of compressing matter & energy in any boundry less environment for making it hot & dense.

Was that hot & dense state of singularity captured into any sort of container or shell, which was prohibitting their expansion? Tell me something about the nature of that singularity.

And what is the space-time? if you think it is vacuum like Eintien explained:

"The General Relativity Vacuum is a space-time model region without matter."  

What that means really? :) if this is the singularity how it becomes hot & dense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

yes, something must always existed and that something is existing at this very moment & will remain existing. This is called perfection in existence.

Like that thing there is nothing. 

And according to you when was God most Perfect...before, during or after creation?

 

46 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

"Matter & Energy are eternal" this is your new claim after "nothing begins to exist".

Nothing begins to exist because matter and energy are eternal.

The law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics) is the best-proved and most universal law of science. It states that energy (capacity to do work) can change forms, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy includes everything in the physical universe (even matter); therefore nothing is being created.
Matter and energy can be converted from one to the other. It's very disproportionate, a small amount of matter can be converted into a huge amount of energy per E=mc^2, and likewise, a huge amount of energy can theoretically be converted into a very small amount of mass."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_Universe

Every FORM of energy is created and destroyed, but energy itself is not created nor destroyed.
I.e. photons, electrons, protons, etc. can be created and destroyed, but the energy of those particles cannot be created nor destroyed.

People naturally get confused if they cannot comprehend the difference between FORM and substance. 
 
But to clarify "energy" doesn't need an external force. Energy is energy. This change of form you seek is present in the energy itself. "Heat" is a form of energy. "Motion" is a form of energy. These do not require an external actor. See: "energy-momentum four-vector" under Einstein's "special relativity". 
 

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/energy-and-enzymes/the-laws-of-thermodynamics/a/the-laws-of-thermodynamics

 

I have asked you several questions in my previous posts, you have answered none of them. :)

would you like me to repeat them? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quisant said:

And according to you when was God most Perfect...before, during or after creation?

He is the Perfect Being as already mentioned "like Him there is nothing". Highest grade in perfection, Ever-Living, The Supreme, Almighty.

2 hours ago, Quisant said:

Nothing begins to exist because matter and energy are eternal.

Already presented before you the procedure of annihilation of matter. So it is not eternal at all. 

About Energy, you are unable to define it. "The ability to do work" is not defining the energy itself. Or it is just defining the energy as non-material thing (ability).

E=mc2 (relativity) or law of conservation of energy are also not defining Energy. We only know how how to calculate energy & what it can do to a system.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an "isolated system" remains constant.

So bring any definition of Energy first what it actually is!

 

Share this post


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

I have asked you several questions in my previous posts, you have answered none of them. :)

would you like me to repeat them? 

Let me see them what were they, I will respond you soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

God was perfect, is perfect and will remain perfect forever. 

Then why change?  Change implies that what comes after was better than before.

13 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

So bring any definition of Energy first what it actually is!

 

13 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

He is the Perfect Being as already mentioned "like Him there is nothing". Highest grade in perfection, Ever-Living, The Supreme, Almighty.

It is amazing how believers never apply the same "nit-picking" questions to their God theory. 
Why is it that they are willing to accept the existence of a Supernatural being without applying the same standards to which they demand others to be held. 

Energy then is "like it there is nothing". Highest grade existence, Ever-Living etc. etc.

Energy is energy. The change of form mentioned is present in the energy itself. "Heat" is a form of energy. "Motion" is a form of energy. 

Energy can exist in a variety of forms, such as electrical, mechanical, chemical, thermal, or nuclear, and can be transformed from one form to another. It is measured by the amount of work done, usually in joules or watts. See also conservation of energy, kinetic energy, potential energy.

It's existence is beyond doubt, the argument does not require me  to demonstrate or define the complete nature of matter/energy, You can easily inform yourself.  I am not uncomfortable with admitting that I don't know something. 

On the other hand, can you show me how the supernatural (above nature) can be observed in the natural Universe? 

Since there is extensive information about energy on the net, I suspect that what you want is not knowledge about energy. What you really want is to catch me out, teach the 'arrogant atheist a lesson'. A somewhat childish stance.. 

 

13 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

Let me see them what were they, I will respond you soon.

Don't worry, do't bother; I am convinced we are not going to learn anything useful from each other.

I am done with the thread, feel free to have the last word. 

All the best.

*
 

Share this post


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

1) Why is " nothing" your default position? 
2) Why should there be "nothing" when there is something?  Can you explain that to me?


The logic behind asserting that there must be a First Cause is based on the premise that everything needs a cause. 
From that initial point, it is posited that there must be a first cause that initiated everything. 
 
Here's where the contradiction comes in. At this point it is claimed that the first cause is exempt from the line of reasoning that required it initially, hence invalidating the initial assertion that everything must have a cause. 

 

Furthermore, the biggest problem with all cosmological arguments is that the final step - identifying the first cause with God - is not justified at all.
3) Why does the first cause have to be intelligent? Why does it have to be supernatural? 
4) How do you identify that First Cause with God? Please elaborate

1) Already answered the first question, "nothing" is not our default position. There always exists a thing (like of which there is nothing).
2) Absurd, Nothingness does not exist.
3) Well to answer that I need to know What is intelligence? What is your understanding of intelligence? Is it any material thing which comes into existence by means of arrangement or re-arrangement of particles? What do you think intelligence is natural?
4) Universe & Life are "Systems", Scientists says that entire universe is an isolated system while we human beings are living systems (open-systems). Existence of creator/designer is pre-requisite for any system. This is also the answer of your question # 3.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Quisant said:

Then why change?  Change implies that what comes after was better than before.

Where you're observing the change? In the first cause? or in the effects of the very first cause?

 

2 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Energy then is "like it there is nothing". Highest grade existence, Ever-Living etc. etc.

:) The problem is that it is not the "first cause" because it lacks intelligence. Otherwise we have a verse in Quran which says "Allaho noor-us-samawate wal ard" (Allah is the light of heavens & earth)

 

7 minutes ago, Quisant said:

Energy is energy. The change of form mentioned is present in the energy itself. "Heat" is a form of energy. "Motion" is a form of energy. 

Ok energy is energy :D
Change of form of what? Water turned into ice, & ice turned into water, water turned into vapors & vapors turned into water. Things continuously changing their forms. Are they energy?

Yes heat is a "form" of energy, but the question is what is energy? I am not asking you about the forms of energy.

 

15 minutes ago, Quisant said:

 I am not uncomfortable with admitting that I don't know something. 

:hahaha:

17 minutes ago, Quisant said:

It's existence is beyond doubt, the argument does not require me  to demonstrate or define the complete nature of matter/energy, You can easily inform yourself.

Yes, energy do exist, I know that, but just asking you, what is energy? How can you define it.
So is a "thing" which exists for sure and it has many forms (likenesses), few of them you missed to mention are dark energy & negative energy as well. Why dark energy seems to violate the law of conservation of energy?

What is the total energy of Universe? Zero or What?

26 minutes ago, Quisant said:

On the other hand, can you show me how the supernatural (above nature) can be observed in the natural Universe? 

Since there is extensive information about energy on the net, I suspect that what you want is not knowledge about energy. What you really want is to catch me out, teach the 'arrogant atheist a lesson'. A somewhat childish stance.. 

What do you think about intelligence? Is it natural? Which particles arrange or re-arrange to form intelligence?

I don't really want to ridicule you brother, believe me. Neither my intention is to teach you any lesson, I am just a student and want to learn something. Don't take me wrong please!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Quisant said:

Then why change?  Change implies that what comes after was better than before.

Whatever comes after was dependent upon it's previous condition, if previous would have been absent, the change would have not occurred if it had no origin to its earlier condition. It is modification into better condition because of its dependence and every dependent thing is submissive.to the thing which caused it and hence lesser in degree due to issue of "dependence".

Edited by Sindbad05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2017 at 0:20 PM, Quisant said:

Consider this: if God creates the universe "out of His own being or mind”, that means the universe (or the 'raw material of the universe’) is eternal in the sense that (the raw material of) the universe is God's being. It didn't begin.
(This would also contradict God's reputation of unchanged and unchangeable)

 

 

"Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His" means that He is the creator of matter. If the "matter" is not created by Allah, and is said to be eternally existing as He is, then He is only a fashioner of things out of matter, in which case nothing belongs to Him. There is no propriety in this conjecture. It is unreasonable to say that there are two independent eternal equals. If matter is accepted as an independent and uncreated eternal, then Allah, to prove His existence, will need the matter to carry out His creative plan, otherwise the matter will remain idle. There is no meaning in the idea of two eternal equals, separated from each other. They must be one. If there are two such beings, then there must be a dividing factor which makes the two as two and maintains their two separate entities, in which case the dividing factor, superior in will and authority will be the ever-existing supreme being.

part of the commentary of 2:255 al-islam.org. It may clarify few concerns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/06/2017 at 6:05 PM, Salsabeel said:

 Don't take me wrong please!  

 

On 09/06/2017 at 0:27 AM, Sindbad05 said:

Whatever comes after was dependent upon it's previous condition, if previous would have been absent, the change would have not occurred if it had no origin to its earlier condition.

 

3 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

If there are two such beings, then there must be a dividing factor which makes the two as two and maintains their two separate entities, in which case the dividing factor, superior in will and authority will be the ever-existing supreme being.

I don't understand why you guys are wasting your time. It is too obvious that your arguments will not cut the ice with this gentleman.

Pack your bags and move on, my friends.

Surely there are better things you can spend your time on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, baqar said:

 

 

I don't understand why you guys are wasting your time. It is too obvious that your arguments will not cut the ice with this gentleman.

Pack your bags and move on, my friends.

Surely there are better things you can spend your time on.

Lolz, you are right bro :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes in an one on one conversation, there comes a time of diminishing returns and we do move on. But these are confined conversations with ot an Audience.

 

When we have Audience, things are directed to the individual and the Jury. After some time, Issues are addressed for the benefit of All.

*****

This information, below  is very basic and we are all aware of it .

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

There are three main branches of science: physical science,earth science, and life science. Physical science is the study of inanimate natural objects and the laws that govern them. It includes physics, chemistry and astronomy.

The veterinary science, the science of criminology, environmental sciences,

The sciences concerned with the study of living organisms, including biology, botany, zoology, microbiology, physiology, biochemistry, and related subjects.

Social Science, study of human society, and social relationships-

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation.

What is common and obvious fact is that Science is a “STUDY” of some thing(universe, human behaviour etc..). Another fact is it's partly ‘OBSERVATION” of something. Partly experiment.

We are All scientists in terms of the fact that we OBSERVE/STUDY what's around us to come to conclusions( Observe basic observable facts like Sun, Moon, Planets etc...in terms of Social Sciences we observe Human/ societies behaviour ) so at a very basic level we are “Studying” the world(physical and social ) around us.

Specialized study requires experiments. Important things here is that experiments have limitations as we can only experiment on things under our control. Managed, at a micro level. At a Macro level we mostly deal with Observations and experiments(with limitations).

What is the point here. Simple, we should not be taken back with condensed, and highly specialized terms like Special Relativity, time compression, Singularity, time-space continuum, regression theory……etc

We should ask the person to define it in very very simple terms, not utilizing scientific terminology. We will see that these are not so complex issues, once they are explained in simple layman terms. Once this kind of basic ground work is been laid out, things will become very simple and manageable to understand, and it's will take the Advantage away from the people utilizing these Terms to confuse the laypeople. Concepts become very simple at this level.

Once we are at this level, we will see the arguments crumble and demystification  of specialized terms/concepts will bring about clarity.

For example:

 

This entire Universe(as we know it ), could be a mosquito is the Amazon jungle. So, It is very arrogant of the Scientific community to present unverified Theories and mix them with Facts and present a holistic view. . No one can deny that fact that All that is around us, just came out of thin air, everything just got its formula right to form water, air etc for Human to develop. Or this Universe to develop on its own.  It's like saying our brain formed because right conditions existed i.e Skull. Kidneys, Heart or blood formed because the right conditions existed in our body. Or a cells arraigned itself to form a leaf and the other time the bark --or the root etc...

In terms of answering the question of God. Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Experimentation is not possible, So, Observation is key....and that is what we are asked , to Observe whats around us(in the immediate vicinity and whats in space)reflect and ponder on it. This is was Science(Study) of something is all about so there is no contradiction  at this level, with "Science" as it it self states its the study of some thing, where observation is involved. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2017 at 5:57 PM, Quisant said:

Edwin Hubble showed that our universe of galaxies is expanding. How has that dealt a blow to Atheistic scientific theories?

@Sindbad05

[Quran 51:47] And the heaven, We built it with craftsmanship and We are still expanding.

Edited by M.IB

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


×