In a meaningless world, does truth always have value over delusion?

_{scordova
July 6, 2013

Atheism, Philosophy, Religion

3}_{Categories
Atheism
Philosophy
Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Two thousand years ago, someone echoed those sentiments:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul of Tarsus
1 Cor 15:32

There was an exchange between KeithS and I in another thread, and he fired off this comment:

Your comment epitomizes one of the biggest problems with Pascal’s Wager. It doesn’t ask the question “What is most likely to be true?” It only asks, “How can I get the best payoff?”

That’s anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager;Comment 100

To which I responded:

But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.

Further KeithS wrote:

Because the value of truth doesn’t depend on the existence of God.

To which I responded:

Value means PAYOFF! What is the payoff if there is no God?

I recall Dawkins in a debate with Lennox was asked about how humans can live their lives in a meaningless world. Dawkins said, “we create our own meaning”. Other atheists have repeated that statement such KeithS:

Life is full of meaning even without God. We create our own meanings, whether you realize it or not.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s wager; Comment 59

to which I responded:

[the phrase] “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.
…
this whole “we create our own meaning” is worse than the religious ideas you are criticizing. You “know” there is no meaning, but you’ll pretend there is anyway. Reminds me of Coyne who “knows” there is no free will but he’ll pretend there is anyway.

And that is what continues to puzzle me about the atheistic variety of Darwinists (not Christian Darwinists). They seem to find much purpose in life in proving life has no purpose!

[posted by scordova to assist News desk with content and commentary until 7/7/13]

Comments

StephenB:
Are you absolutely certain that you are not absolutely certain?
keiths:
No.
StephenB:
If you are not absolutely certain that you are not absolutely certain, then you are acknowledging the possibility that you may be absolutely certain.
Exactly! I think you're starting to get it! If you can't be certain that your cognitive apparatus is reliable, then you can't even be certain that you're correct about your state of certainty!keiths_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
If you are not absolutely certain that you are not absolutely certain, then you are acknowledging the possibility that you may be absolutely certain.
Rather than play that game about how certain "absolutely certain" is, why not address the central questions of Intelligent Design Theory? These questions help clarify ID quite a bit. The “iCause” is just a neutral term I’m using here to mean “That which ID proposes as the best explanation for life and the universe”. 1) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the iCause experiences conscious awareness? 2) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that this iCause could explain in grammatical language how biological systems operate? 3) What, if any, evidence does ID provide to support a claim that the iCause can do anything else aside from produce the very features we are trying to explain (biological complexity, fine-tuned constants, etc), and if there is such evidence, what other things does this evidence lead us to believe the iCause could do? Can you answer these questions? Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

SB: Are you absolutely certain that you are not absolutely certain? keiths:
No.
If you are not absolutely certain that you are not absolutely certain, then you are acknowledging the possibility that you may be absolutely certain.StephenB_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

No rebuttal, eh?
Whats there to rebut? Vividvividbleau_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, No rebuttal, eh?keiths_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

“I think I think “I” am typing this” is a thought. Therefore you can’t be absolutely certain of it.
Ok I will take your word for it. Just so I am perfectly clear what you are saying. If "I" think "I" think is a thought then I am actually thinking a thought so I can get rid of the "I" think "I" think and just say "I" think. Vividvividbleau_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, If your cognitive abilities are unreliable, then you can't be absolutely certain of the truth of any thought. "I think I think “I” am typing this" is a thought. Therefore you can't be absolutely certain of it.keiths_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

No, because if your cognitive abilities are not reliable then you can’t be absolutely certain that your thoughts are correct, including that one.
Doesn't change anything. I don't know whether my thoughts are correct, they may not be my thoughts, there may be no such thing as thoughts,doesnt change a thing about what "I" think "I" think. Vividvividbleau_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

vividbleau,
Even if my cognitive abilities are not reliable my answer stands.
No, because if your cognitive abilities are not reliable then you can't be absolutely certain that your thoughts are correct, including that one.keiths_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Well Mr. Fox, the truth of the matter, despite your denialism, is that theodicy is woven throughout your beloved theory,, here are a few recent examples. Panda's Thumb is itself named after such arrogant thinking (that they know better than God). From Discovering Intelligent Design: Two Thumbs Up - May 27, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that "odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution -- paths that a sensible God would never tread." Likewise Miller claims that an intelligent designer would have "been capable of remodeling a complete digit, like the thumb of a primate, to hold the panda's food." It turns out that the panda's thumb is not a clumsy design. A study published in Nature used MRI and computer tomography to analyze the thumb and concluded that the bones "form a double pincer-like apparatus" thus "enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity." The critics' objection is backed by little more than their subjective opinion about what a "sensible God" should have made. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/from_discoverin_4072531.html Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue to support such a, supposedly, well supported scientific theory: Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj9h9Zx6Mw In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala (a former priest) uses theological argumentation in his book to support Darwinism and invites him to present evidence, any supporting evidence at all, that Darwinism can actually do what he claims it can: Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg Further quotes on the theological premises of Darwinists from the now falsified 'Junk' DNA argument: "The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, “orphaned” genes, “junk” DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. It works, and it works brilliantly; not because of intelligent design, but because of the great blind power of natural selection." – Ken Miller "Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution … we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed … the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply … our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" – Jerry Coyne "We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats, and pseudo¬genes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production. Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution." – Michael Shermer And, to point out once again, the theological 'bad design' argument, which Darwinists unwittingly continually use to try to make their case, is actually its own independent discipline of study within Theology itself called Theodicy: Is Your Bod Flawed by God? - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: Theodicy (the discipline in Theism of reconciling natural evil with a good God) might be a problem for 19th-century deism and simplistic natural theology, but not for Biblical theology. It was not a problem for Jesus Christ, who was certainly not oblivious to the blind, the deaf, the lepers and the lame around him. It was not a problem for Paul, who spoke of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain till the coming redemption of all things (Romans 8). http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100214abornagain77_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, My previous comment applies to your objection, too. I did not offer an objection I answered your question. The best you could do is that you cannot be absolutely certain that your cognitive abilities are reliable. So what? Even if my cognitive abilities are not reliable my answer stands. Vividvividbleau_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

In fact, so arrogant is the typical atheist in his beliefs that he thinks he knows how God ought best run the universe.
I doubt any atheist "thinks he knows how God ought best run the universe". Why would he? Being a practical atheist myself, the very idea of "God" is incompehensible to me, so what such an imaginary concept might involve does not enter my consciousness.Alan Fox_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

No actually Mr. Fox, I am painfully aware that I have very limited influence, did not claim otherwise contrary to your accusation to the contrary, whereas my impression of Darwinists is that they, almost without fail, think that they are smarter than everybody else. In fact, so arrogant is the typical atheist in his beliefs that he thinks he knows how God ought best run the universe. In fact that arrogance about atheists thinking that he knows for certain how God ought and ought not run the universe is woven into the Theodological foundation of neo-Darwinism,,, "One of the great ironies of the atheist mind is that no-one is more cock-sure of exactly what God is like, exactly what God would think, exactly what God would do, than the committed atheist. Of course he doesn’t believe in God, but if God did exist, he knows precisely what God would be like and how God would behave. Or so he thinks",,," Eric - UD Blogger Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html The Descent of Darwin - Pastor Joe Boot - (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJqk7xF4-g The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVx42Izp1ek And in the following quote, Dr. John Avise explicitly uses Theodicy to try to make the case for Darwinism: It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter - June 2012 Excerpt: "Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]" - Dr. John Avise - "Inside The Human Genome" There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/awesome-power-behind-evolution-it-is.html What’s more ironic is that Dr. John Avise’s theological argumentation from mutations for Darwinism turns out to be, in fact (without Darwinian Theological blinders on), a very powerful ‘scientific’ argument against Darwinism: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/evolution-professor-special-creation.html?showComment=1340994836963#c5431261417430067209bornagain77_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, My previous comment applies to your objection, too.keiths_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

DonaldM, Barb, StephenB, Are you beginning to see the pattern? I am not absolutely certain of anything, including this very statement. My sensory information isn't absolutely trustworthy, because I know that human senses aren't perfectly reliable (cf optical illusions). And even if they were perfectly reliable, I'd still face the brain-in-a-vat problem. What about the cogito? No, I can't be certain of that, because a) the cogito depends on logic, and I can't be absolutely certain that the rules of logic are correct, or that I am applying them correctly; and b) it depends on a premise -- thoughts require a thinker -- that I can't be absolutely certain of. The last resort would be to claim that thought itself (or even just experience itself) exists, and that if nothing else, I can at least know that with absolute certainty. But can I? If I can't be absolutely certain that my cognitive apparatus is reliable, then even this conclusion drops below absolute certainty. I can defend near certainty, but I can't defend absolute certainty. And no, I'm not absolutely certain about that. Of course.keiths_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

One certainty that such irrational actions give me is the absolute certainty that I am not dealing with rational people when I deal with Darwinists!
You deal with Darwinists? By spamming this site and a few others? I think you have an inflated impression of the scope of your influence! :)Alan Fox_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

KeithS “Can you give us an example of something you believe that could not possibly, noway, nohow, be wrong?”
"I" am absolutely certain that "I" think I think “I” am typing this. Now there may be no I, the I maybe an illusion, an hallucination, a dream, in the matrix, a brain in the vat, whatever,it does not matter. It does not change that I am absolutely certain that "I" think I think "I" am typing this. Vivid Vividvividbleau_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Are you absolutely certain that you are not absolutely certain?
No.keiths_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Mr. Fox, the word was 'posting', sorry,,
“Speculations? I have none. I am resting on certainties. I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” [When asked about his speculations on life beyond death, as quoted in The Homiletic Review (April 1896), p. 442] ?Michael Faraday - He was one of the greatest experimenters ever - credited with inventing the electric motor. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Faraday.html
And in the spirit of Faraday what experimental evidence can we offer for life after death? It turns out, contrary to what many materialists may believe, that we can offer a lot more sure evidence than Darwinists can ever offer for material processes ever generating functional information (which is none and never)!
As to establishing the transcendent soul https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/why-materialist-neuroscience-must-necessarily-remain-a-pseudo-discipline/#comment-459110
,,But since we are dealing in certainties Mr. Fox, let's back up a bit and ask 'how can you be so unwaveringly certain that material processes can produce molecular machines even though you have not even one example of material processes doing as such?'
"Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved." - Dr Behe in 1997 Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A
and since you can't demonstrate just one molecular machine arising by Darwinian processes, why should I believe you can explain entire factories arising in such a fashion?
Venter: Life Is Robotic Software - July 15, 2012 Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter. http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/
Much less entire factories that operate on the fly,,
Problems with the Metaphor of a Cell as "Machine" - July 2012 Excerpt: Too often, we envision the cell as a "factory" containing a fixed complement of "machinery" operating according to "instructions" (or "software" or "blueprints") contained in the genome and spitting out the "gene products" (proteins) that sustain life. Many things are wrong with this picture, but one of the problems that needs to be discussed more openly is the fact that in this "factory," many if not most of the "machines" are themselves constantly turning over -- being assembled when and where they are needed, and disassembled afterwards. The mitotic spindle...is one of the best-known examples, but there are many others. Funny sort of "factory" that, with the "machinery" itself popping in and out of existence as needed!,,, - James Barham http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/problems_with_t062691.html
Mr. Fox, that should literally send a chill down your spine as to entertaining any quote unquote 'certainty' that any of that can be explained without reference to Intelligent Design. Yet, here you, and other Darwinists, sit, day after day, pretending as if you are 'certain' that unguided material processes can produce such staggering complexity.,, One certainty that such irrational actions give me is the absolute certainty that I am not dealing with rational people when I deal with Darwinists!bornagain77_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Barb, You're completely missing the point. Try this article: Brain in a vat Donald can't be absolutely certain that he's sitting up in front of a computer at a desk", and neither can you. I don't blame you for believing it, and it's a good provisional hypothesis. But you can't be absolutely certain of it, because you can't completely rule out the possibility that you are a brain in a vat. Think about it. What could you possibly do that would prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that you are not a brain in a vat?keiths_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Ah a pate is under a hat so never mind!Alan Fox_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Phil I said I am certain I will die one day. I am not absolutely certain what might happen subsequently. hat's "pating"? Unfamiliar with that word.Alan Fox_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Mr. Fox, sounds like you are weaseling from what is truly important in the matter.,,, Instead of pating a dozen links showing why we know for a fact that we will live past death, let me suffice to say Mr. Fox that honesty would become you if you should ever decide on not deceiving yourself as you do.bornagain77_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

...your statement reminded me of this statement...
Oh dear, I should have known better. I said I don't expect to live forever, Phil. As it happens, I do doubt I, or anyone else, will have a life beyond reality after dying but I am not absolutely certain of that. I am absolutely certain that I will not live forever in the sense that the body that is me will die (that is irreversibly and irrevokably cease to function) one dayAlan Fox_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

keiths:
Umm, Barb — I’m talking about typing something in the dream, not typing something in reality while dreaming.
Then, logically, DonaldM could pinch himself to make sure he's awake, alert, and conscious and not dreaming. Problem solved.
I wasn’t denying any of those things. I was denying that Donald could be absolutely certain of any of those things, beyond the slightest sliver of a shadow of a doubt.
DonaldM can be absolutely certain he is not sleeping, especially if he is sitting up in front of a computer at a desk. I can be sure that I am also not sleeping, since I am sitting up at a desk. I pinched myself, so I know without a doubt that I am awake. As StephenB pointed out, your position violates one of the most basic rules of philosophy and logic. It's unjustified and basically self-defeating. William Lane Craig answers this question handily: "“Since every possible option has not been explored, nothing can be said for certain.” That statement is itself a claim to knowledge! (A claim that is patently false, but never mind!" Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-knowledge-require-certainty#ixzz2YOCTwkYPBarb_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Mr Fox. your statement reminded me of this statement:
"I knew for certain there was no such thing as life after death. Only simple minded people believed in that sort of thing. I didn't believe in God, Heaven, or Hell, or any other fairy tales. I drifted into darkness. Drifting asleep into anihilation.,,(Chapter 2 - The Descent),, I was standing up. I opened my eyes to see why I was standing up. I was between two hospital beds in the hospital room.,,, Everything that was me, my consciousness and my physical being, was standing next to the bed. No, it wasn't me lying in the bed. It was just a thing that didn't have any importance to me. It might as well have been a slab of meat in the supermarket" Howard Storm - former hard-core atheist - Excerpt from his book, 'My Descent Into Death' (Page 12-14) http://books.google.com/books?id=kd4gxtQAeq8C&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false
bornagain77_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

In other words, it makes more sense to recognise God as present in that which is good, than to define good as that which is commanded by God, given that there is no objective way of determining what those commands are.
I never said or implied that good is that which is commanded by god. In fact, I've told you explicitly, several times, as have others, that good is not "commanded" by god, but rather it is a fundamental characteristic of what god is. God cannot change what is good. You're equivocal usage of the term "objective" only serves to accept what you want, when you want, and deny what you want, when you want. Under your paradigm, then, a person can equally "recognize" the God in a good act of abuse and oppression, murder and theft - if that is how they tend to think that other people should be treated. It has no meaning to say something is good - it has no more value than saying that you like cherry pie.William J Murray_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

I'm absolutely certain that I won't live forever (not that I would want to). Does that violate the law of absolute uncertainty?Alan Fox_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer: why I shouldn’t slit your throat for whatever you may have in your wallet. Or kill you and eat your liver with fava beans.
Can you use a little less personal language when talking to KeithS, please? This is creeping me out. A better phrasing:
why someone should slit someone else's throat
That makes the same point without making it too personal.scordova_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

keiths:
No, because I’m not absolutely certain that nothing is absolutely certain.
Are you absolutely certain that you are not absolutely certain?StephenB_{July 7, 2013
July
07
Jul
7
07
2013
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply