Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hornet View Post
    Suppose you make a truth claim and someone else asks you to prove it. If you prove it, he can ask you to give a proof for that proof. When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?
    I'm not sure what a "proof for that proof" would be.

    If you try to prove something to me, and I don't accept your conclusion, I can either criticize your logic, or I can refuse to accept one or more of your premises. Let's assume that you understand logic pretty well, and I don't have any problem with it.

    In the event that I don't agree with one of your premises, you can try to prove it, or you can rewrite your proof with other premises, or (as often happens) we will end up having to agree to disagree.

    Ultimately, your premises have to be so obviously true that it would be more difficult for me to dismiss them than to accept your conclusion. This isn't always possible.

    The short answer to your question is that it ends when we agree, or when one or both of us runs out of patience.

    Are there any beliefs that do not have to be proven?
    Sure. It only has to be proven if you want to convince someone else to believe it, who doesn't already believe it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      I must have missed it when either one of you responded to it in anything other than a "But gee, science works for x; therefore science must work for a through zed!" case of begging the question.

      And no, this is not "Argument from Ignorance." Argument from ignorance is assuming that a proposition is true because it's not yet been proven false or false because it's not yet been proven true. I am giving positive reasons for why your position is self-contradictory and incoherent, reasons to which you never respond.
      You have NOT provided a positive hypothesis that may be falsified and decisive. Yes, you have proposed 'arguing from ignorance' as what science cannot currently expalned concerning for example cosnciousnes,

      Still waiting , , ,

      be specific.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        Yes. Certain moral duties would supersede certain religious claims.
        Hence, moral standards are changeable according to the prevailing moral values of the day – religious or otherwise.

        And no knowledge is 'decisive' in the sense that it could not conceivably be overturned or radically re-contextualized by future paradigm shifts, including scientific knowledge.
        Indeed. All knowledge has the potential to be “overturned”, but unlike subjective moral standards, objective verifiable scientific knowledge and its predictability over time can be to all intents and purposes, decisive.

        It's curious why neither one of you will ever respond to my central point that your claim contradicts itself. You either don't understand it or you have no response.
        The claims of established scientific knowledge are generally NOT contradicted in practice – e.g. you are banging away at a computer keypad (a product of scientific technology) even as you simultaneously witter on about scientific claims contradicting themselves.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          You have NOT provided a positive hypothesis that may be falsified and decisive. Yes, you have proposed 'arguing from ignorance' as what science cannot currently expalned concerning for example cosnciousnes,

          Still waiting , , ,

          be specific.
          You are using Popper's criterion of demarcation for SCIENCE which has not even been universally accepted as a criterion for science. Science is not a simple, unified activity, but a continuously changing landscape that connects it with non-scientific activity.

          We are talking about the explanatory scope of science itself, so you cannot justifiably demand a criterion of demarcation for science, which is itself controversial, as a necessary condition for my critique. I wasn't talking about consciousness. That was anther thread. Try to focus! I was talking about the self-contradiction and incoherence of your and Tassman's position, and the the simple laws of logic as undergirding ALL of rational thought, including science.

          So, specifically, once again, your position is incoherent and self-contradictory.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Hence, moral standards are changeable according to the prevailing moral values of the day – religious or otherwise.
            No, that doesn't follow at all. How do you get that?



            Indeed. All knowledge has the potential to be “overturned”, but unlike subjective moral standards, objective verifiable scientific knowledge and its predictability over time can be to all intents and purposes, decisive.
            According to the standard that you've already decided is the only one you'll allow to count. And round and round we go! Nothing is more decisive than the proposition that I am conscious, which is neither objectively verifiable or falsifiable. That torturing infants for one's amusement is wrong is more decisive than any deliverance of empirical science.



            The claims of established scientific knowledge are generally NOT contradicted in practice – e.g. you are banging away at a computer keypad (a product of scientific technology) even as you simultaneously witter on about scientific claims contradicting themselves.
            I am 'wittering on' about a metaphysical and epistemological claim you are making, not a practical claim about the technical proficiencies of science and technology. The problem is that one always has a metaphysics, whether one acknowledges it or not. One either does it well or badly, and in the case of the naive, unacknowledged metaphysicians of science such as Shuny and yourself, you do it very, very badly, to the point where you can't even follow the conversation.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              You are using Popper's criterion of demarcation for SCIENCE which has not even been universally accepted as a criterion for science. Science is not a simple, unified activity, but a continuously changing landscape that connects it with non-scientific activity.
              You'recreating high fog index to justify your agenda. MethodologicalNaturalism isuniversally held in theacademic world of science. There is no changing landscape as far as I know. Where the objective verifiable evidence ends, the subjective world of philodophy and theology, begins.

              We are talking about the explanatory scope of science itself, so you cannot justifiably demand a criterion of demarcation for science, which is itself controversial, as a necessary condition for my critique. I wasn't talking about consciousness. That was anther thread. Try to focus! I was talking about the self-contradiction and incoherence of your and Tassman's position, and the the simple laws of logic as undergirding ALL of rational thought, including science.
              Oh yes, I can demand a demarcation between Methodological Naturalism, and the subjective world of Theology and Philosophy.

              So, specifically, once again, your position is incoherent and self-contradictory.
              No contradiction whatsoever. The problem remains that you have failed to present anything that decisive in the sunjective world of Theology nor Pliosophy. It is your position that is self-contradictory in a world of philosophy and theology where there is no concensus nor agreement that can be decisively determined.

              Still waiting. . . but I will not hold my breath.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                No, that doesn't follow at all. How do you get that?
                Deities are the arbiters of moral behavior. If the Mayan gods demand the sacrifice of children for rain and fertile fields then it would be immoral to disobey them. Hence, moral standards are changeable according to the prevailing moral values of the day – religious or otherwise.

                According to the standard that you've already decided is the only one you'll allow to count.
                It’s the ONLY “standard” that can count because, unlike changeable subjective moral standards, objective scientific knowledge and its predictability over time is demonstrably decisive.

                The problem is that one always has a metaphysics, whether one acknowledges it or not.
                It's not a problem. As shuny says Methodological Naturalism “is universally held in the academic world of science” and is capable of achieving decisive conclusions which demonstrably produce testable results. Conversely, philosophy/theology is incapable of arriving at a consensus nor agreement whereby ANY decisive conclusions can be arrived at.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  You'recreating high fog index to justify your agenda. MethodologicalNaturalism isuniversally held in theacademic world of science. There is no changing landscape as far as I know. Where the objective verifiable evidence ends, the subjective world of philodophy and theology, begins.
                  It's fog if you don't understand it. This isn't methodological naturalism we are debating but metaphysical naturalism. It's about metaphysical and epistemological claims, not about methodological claims. Yes, there is no changing landscape "as far as you know." For once, we are in total agreement! And once again, science is based upon metaphysical and logical assumptions that cannot be empirically verifiable, because empirical verification depends on such assumptions. So your accusation of a 'subjective world' of philosophy, once again, is based on a confusion between the two meanings of the word 'subjective.'



                  Oh yes, I can demand a demarcation between Methodological Naturalism, and the subjective world of Theology and Philosophy.
                  So can I. If only that was what we were talking about!



                  No contradiction whatsoever. The problem remains that you have failed to present anything that decisive in the sunjective world of Theology nor Pliosophy. It is your position that is self-contradictory in a world of philosophy and theology where there is no concensus nor agreement that can be decisively determined.
                  Yes there is a contradiction. I've laid it out as simply as I can. And who is talking about theology?! Why do you keep bringing theology up, other than to 'poison the well'? And you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'subjective.' It is contradictory in the context of rational coherence and things not contradicting each other. You're making a metaphysical claim that only empirical, non-metaphysical claims can be 'decisively' true. The metaphysical claim does not fall within the category of 'decisively' true claims, so it can be ignored. It negates itself.

                  Still waiting. . . but I will not hold my breath.
                  I've already given them to you. You can lead a mule to evidence but you can't force it to think.

                  You'll accept nothing other than scientific truths as 'decisive' truths because that's how you've decided to define 'decisive' truths, without any further argument or evidence. Sounds like you're a religious fanatic and scientism is your religion; you use the same circular, impenetrable justifications as Marxists, Scientologists, Fundies, etc. ....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Deities are the arbiters of moral behavior. If the Mayan gods demand the sacrifice of children for rain and fertile fields then it would be immoral to disobey them. Hence, moral standards are changeable according to the prevailing moral values of the day – religious or otherwise.
                    Deities are the arbiters of moral behavior according to who? According to you who hold this particular theory. You have to distinguish whether you are speaking of morality descriptively or normatively. Your understaning of morality is somewhat simplistic and conforms, just like all of the rest of your thought, with your pre-existing assumptions, creating an impermeable, self-ratifying web of self-confirmation. It must be very reassuring.



                    It’s the ONLY “standard” that can count because, unlike changeable subjective moral standards, objective scientific knowledge and its predictability over time is demonstrably decisive.
                    Moral understanding is different from empirical understanding, but that fact alone does not establish that the former is without any foundation in objective truth and the latter isn't problematic in its relation to 'objective truth'. Empirical knowledge has changed over, time and some of it gets overturned and revised. But as I've gone to great lengths on other threads to discuss, moral relativism has deep flaws. There's no reason to believe that there isn't moral progress and that individuals and societies can't be mstaken in their moral beliefs.

                    Why should we expect all kinds of knowledge to be the same or meet the same criteria? That's foolish. I know that I'm in pain in a qualitatively different way than I know that you are in pain or that today is Thursday or what the speed of light is or the date of the Norman Invasion. Truth and knowledge are 'family resemblance' concepts and not simplistic 'Yes' or 'No' dualities.



                    It's not a problem. As shuny says Methodological Naturalism “is universally held in the academic world of science” and is capable of achieving decisive conclusions which demonstrably produce testable results. Conversely, philosophy/theology is incapable of arriving at a consensus nor agreement whereby ANY decisive conclusions can be arrived at.
                    It's not methodological naturalism that's the problem but metaphysical naturalism and scientism. You both are engaging in metaphysics and philosophy whether you know it or not. The problem is that you are doing it unwittingly and therefore very clumsily. Metaphysics is inescapable. The only question is, Will you do it consciously or unconsciously and thus as part of an ideological program?
                    Last edited by Jim B.; 08-06-2020, 03:40 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Deities are the arbiters of moral behavior according to who?
                      Deities are the arbiters of moral behavior according to those who accept the divine authority of a given deity – as did the Mayans with regard to their belief that their gods demanded the sacrifice of children for rain and fertile fields.

                      According to you who hold this particular theory. You have to distinguish whether you are speaking of morality descriptively or normatively.
                      No, what one has to “distinguish” is what behaviors and attitudes are considered by a given society to be moral or immoral under certain circumstances at a certain time in history.

                      Moral understanding is different from empirical understanding, but that fact alone does not establish that the former is without any foundation in objective truth and the latter isn't problematic in its relation to 'objective truth'.
                      Moral understanding alone has no means of establishing itself as “objective truth” other than what is determined by a given society at a particular point in time – e.g. Mayans sacrificing children to their gods, or the good people of Salem killing witches, or subjugating women and blacks. This was all considered “objective truth” at the time.

                      Empirical knowledge has changed over, time and some of it gets overturned and revised.
                      “Empirical knowledge” as in settled science, may be tweaked but it is rarely overturned. And, unlike metaphysical arguments, it has the means to empirically test its knowledge.

                      There's no reason to believe that there isn't moral progress and that individuals and societies can't be mistaken in their moral beliefs.
                      You seem to assume that “moral progress” entails progress towards an ideal, objective goal, but there is no good reason to believe such a goal exists.

                      I know that I'm in pain in a qualitatively different way than I know that you are in pain or that today is Thursday or what the speed of light is or the date of the Norman Invasion. Truth and knowledge are 'family resemblance' concepts and not simplistic 'Yes' or 'No' dualities.
                      There is no reason to assume that awareness of “pain” is something other than physical activity of the brain. This is being increasingly understood by the cognitive sciences. This is a more productive avenue than an academic metaphysical argument conducted from an armchair, which has no means of verification other than a rival metaphysical argument conducted from an armchair,.

                      It's not methodological naturalism that's the problem but metaphysical naturalism
                      Indeed. And as I said before Methodological Naturalism is the logical corollary of Metaphysical Naturalism.
                      Last edited by Tassman; 08-06-2020, 11:58 PM.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        Deities are the arbiters of moral behavior according to those who accept the divine authority of a given deity – as did the Mayans with regard to their belief that their gods demanded the sacrifice of children for rain and fertile fields.
                        But what you've written is a tautology. It's utterly vacuous.



                        No, what one has to “distinguish” is what behaviors and attitudes are considered by a given society to be moral or immoral under certain circumstances at a certain time in history.
                        But you're defining the field to conform to your pre-suppositions. What one has to "distinguish" are the basic concepts of the field that one is purportedly attempting to "discuss".



                        Moral understanding alone has no means of establishing itself as “objective truth” other than what is determined by a given society at a particular point in time – e.g. Mayans sacrificing children to their gods, or the good people of Salem killing witches, or subjugating women and blacks. This was all considered “objective truth” at the time.
                        Again, you're defining the field to conform to your pre-suppositions, which is how you appear to approach every single topic that we discuss. Try to familiarize yourself with the basics. You don't even take the trouble to try to understand the position that you're refuting! I'm beginning to think you can't.



                        “Empirical knowledge” as in settled science, may be tweaked but it is rarely overturned. And, unlike metaphysical arguments, it has the means to empirically test its knowledge.
                        There are a number of empirical hypotheses that have been overturned. But you keep missing and/or ignoring my main points, namely that empirical science is premised on non-empirical metaphysical assumptions that can never be empirically verified, and that your thesis that only empirical statements can be decisively true is self-negating.



                        You seem to assume that “moral progress” entails progress towards an ideal, objective goal, but there is no good reason to believe such a goal exists.
                        There can be no good reason to think there is an objective goal because of
                        A) the "Diversity Thesis", i.e. if people disagree about something then there can be no objective truth of the matter, and
                        B) the "Scientism Thesis", i.e. that the only decisive truths can be scientific empirical truths.

                        These are both exceedingly bad arguments. And I have presented other arguments on other threads for why moral relativism generally is seriously flawed.



                        There is no reason to assume that awareness of “pain” is something other than physical activity of the brain. This is being increasingly understood by the cognitive sciences. This is a more productive avenue than an academic metaphysical argument conducted from an armchair, which has no means of verification other than a rival metaphysical argument conducted from an armchair,.
                        That's because, one more time, they're doing completely, incommensurably different kinds of things, at different logical levels. You're assuming the conclusion you desire within your premise again. Are you able you see that? We've been over this and over this. You clearly lack either a) the intellectual capacity, b) the willingness, or c) both, to even begin to understand what I am arguing. So let's just drop it.



                        Indeed. And as I said before Methodological Naturalism is the logical corollary of Metaphysical Naturalism.
                        But not logically entailed, as I've said before. Otherwise, Einstein could not have believed in a Spinozistic God or Newton in his conception of God, etc, while both men could still hold steadfastly to Methodological Naturalism.

                        Comment


                        • For Tassman:

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_eMZsxmNnk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            Deities are the arbiters of moral behavior according to those who accept the divine authority of a given deity – as did the Mayans with regard to their belief that their gods demanded the sacrifice of children for rain and fertile fields.
                            But what you've written is a tautology. It's utterly vacuous.



                            No, what one has to “distinguish” is what behaviors and attitudes are considered by a given society to be moral or immoral under certain circumstances at a certain time in history.
                            But you're defining the field to conform to your pre-suppositions. What one has to "distinguish" are the basic concepts of the field that one is purportedly attempting to "discuss".



                            Moral understanding alone has no means of establishing itself as “objective truth” other than what is determined by a given society at a particular point in time – e.g. Mayans sacrificing children to their gods, or the good people of Salem killing witches, or subjugating women and blacks. This was all considered “objective truth” at the time.
                            Again, you're defining the field to conform to your pre-suppositions, which is how you appear to approach every single topic that we discuss. Try to familiarize yourself with the basics. You don't even take the trouble to try to understand the position that you're refuting! I'm beginning to think you can't.



                            “Empirical knowledge” as in settled science, may be tweaked but it is rarely overturned. And, unlike metaphysical arguments, it has the means to empirically test its knowledge.
                            There are a number of empirical hypotheses that have been overturned. But you keep missing and/or ignoring my main points, namely that empirical science is premised on non-empirical metaphysical assumptions that can never be empirically verified, and that your thesis that only empirical statements can be decisively true is self-negating.



                            You seem to assume that “moral progress” entails progress towards an ideal, objective goal, but there is no good reason to believe such a goal exists.
                            There can be no good reason to think there is an objective goal because of
                            A) the "Diversity Thesis", i.e. if people disagree about something then there can be no objective truth of the matter, and
                            B) the "Scientism Thesis", i.e. that the only decisive truths can be scientific empirical truths.

                            These are both exceedingly bad arguments. And I have presented other arguments on other threads for why moral relativism generally is seriously flawed.



                            There is no reason to assume that awareness of “pain” is something other than physical activity of the brain. This is being increasingly understood by the cognitive sciences. This is a more productive avenue than an academic metaphysical argument conducted from an armchair, which has no means of verification other than a rival metaphysical argument conducted from an armchair,.
                            That's because, one more time, they're doing completely, incommensurably different kinds of things, at different logical levels. You're assuming the conclusion you desire within your premise again. Are you able you see that? We've been over this and over this. You clearly lack either a) the intellectual capacity, b) the willingness, or c) both, to even begin to understand what I am arguing. So let's just drop it.



                            Indeed. And as I said before Methodological Naturalism is the logical corollary of Metaphysical Naturalism.
                            But not logically entailed, as I've said before. Otherwise, Einstein could not have believed in a Spinozistic God or Newton in his conception of God, etc, while both men could still hold steadfastly to Methodological Naturalism.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                              It's fog if you don't understand it. This isn't methodological naturalism we are debating but metaphysical naturalism. It's about metaphysical and epistemological claims, not about methodological claims. Yes, there is no changing landscape "as far as you know." For once, we are in total agreement! And once again, science is based upon metaphysical and logical assumptions that cannot be empirically verifiable, because empirical verification depends on such assumptions. So your accusation of a 'subjective world' of philosophy, once again, is based on a confusion between the two meanings of the word 'subjective.'
                              Methodological Naturalism is the basis for the belief of Metaphysical Naturalism, because there is no objective verifiable evidence nor falsifiable hypothesis for alternative. The alternatives require philosophical and theological assumptions outside our objective physical world. Yes, it requires a philosophical assumption that there are no other worlds or Gods beyond the physical world, but nonetheless there is a basis for the belief.

                              So can I. If only that was what we were talking about!
                              That is an issue concerning what we are talking about, and you reinforced it.

                              We are talking about the explanatory scope of science itself, so you cannot justifiably demand a criterion of demarcation for science, which is itself controversial, as a necessary condition for my critique. I wasn't talking about consciousness. That was anther thread. Try to focus! I was talking about the self-contradiction and incoherence of your and Tassman's position, and the the simple laws of logic as undergirding ALL of rational thought, including science.
                              You are making confllicting statements.

                              Yes there is a contradiction. I've laid it out as simply as I can. And who is talking about theology?! Why do you keep bringing theology up, other than to 'poison the well'? And you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'subjective.' It is contradictory in the context of rational coherence and things not contradicting each other. You're making a metaphysical claim that only empirical, non-metaphysical claims can be 'decisively' true. The metaphysical claim does not fall within the category of 'decisively' true claims, so it can be ignored. It negates itself.
                              Simply you have not been able back up decisive 'turths' out side science. and in science they are decisive theories and hypothesis that are subject to change with new information. Outside science we do not ahve that 'decisive' basis for knowledge.


                              I've already given them to you. You can lead a mule to evidence but you can't force it to think.
                              You'll accept nothing other than scientific truths as 'decisive' truths because that's how you've decided to define 'decisive' truths, without any further argument or evidence. Sounds like you're a religious fanatic and scientism is your religion; you use the same circular, impenetrable justifications as Marxists, Scientologists, Fundies, etc. ....[/QUOTE]

                              Name calling is not a coherent response.

                              It still remains you have failed to provide 'decisive' truths based on subjective philosophical assumptions.

                              de·ci·sive /dəˈsīsiv/ adjective settling an issue; producing a definite result.


                              Still waiting . . . but I will not hold my breath.

                              When does proving one's truth claims come to an end? When you cannot objecitively support them.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-10-2020, 08:00 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                But what you've written is a tautology. It's utterly vacuous
                                No, it’s a response to your vacuous: “Deities are the arbiters of moral behavior according to who? Obviously, to those that believe in said deities.

                                But you're defining the field to conform to your pre-suppositions. What one has to "distinguish" are the basic concepts of the field that one is purportedly attempting to "discuss".
                                Not at all. The origin of morality is biology and natural selection, not metaphysical arguments about the nature of good and evil.

                                Again, you're defining the field to conform to your pre-suppositions,
                                See above.

                                There are a number of empirical hypotheses that have been overturned.
                                Scientific hypotheses are merely proposed explanations for a phenomenon. The next step is to investigate the hypothesis so as to arrive at a scientific theory that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method. Empirical knowledge as in settled science, is rarely overturned. And, unlike metaphysical arguments, scientific methodology has the means to empirically test its knowledge.

                                That's because, one more time, they're doing completely, incommensurably different kinds of things, at different logical levels. You're assuming the conclusion you desire within your premise again.
                                Indeed, they ARE “doing completely, incommensurately different kinds of things, at different logical levels”. Cogitative science is searching for (and finding) a decisive physical explanation for subjective experiences such as ‘pain’. Whereas metaphysics can offer nothing more than talking about it – as you so loquaciously demonstrate.

                                But not logically entailed, as I've said before.
                                Nevertheless, it is either Methodological Naturalism - namely verifiable evidence and falsifiable hypotheses - or nothing other than the academic, inconclusive, unverifiable armchair musings in which you specialize.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X