Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Cosmological Argument and God


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#1 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 05:59 PM

Hi everyone,

I'm new on these forums, and have recently taken an interest in LDS beliefs. I was approached by a missionary while staying in Vancouver (there is a church - or temple? - in my town, but I have never seen a missionary around these parts) some time ago, but they never got back to me. Oh well.

I've read around a bit, and I find one thing I find quite confusing - namely the Mormon stance (whether at the doctrinal level or that of individual Mormons) on classical arguments in favour of theism. Of particular interest would be cosmological arguments from traditional authors such as St. Thomas Aquinas. I must admit a bias here in favour of St. Thomas, since he was my first real encounter with religion. I've always appreciated the technical clarity of his thought.

The most famous cosmological argument - and perhaps theistic argument in general - would be Aquinas' "Unmoved Mover," ("motion" being the eduction of Potency to Act) which proceeds like so, adapted from Contra Gentiles 1.13.3:

~
1. Some things are in Motion;

2. Everything that is Moved is Moved by a Mover;

3. The preceding Mover is either itself Moved by another Mover or is Unmoved;

4. A regression of Motion (i.e. of Moved Movers) exists;

5. The regression of Moved Movers must either proceed to infinity or terminate in an Unmoved Mover;

6. The regression of Moved Movers cannot proceed to infinity;

Therefore, we must posit the existence of an Unmoved Mover to account for Motion.

~

Motion, in Aquinas' day and philosophy, did not simply mean moving from one locale to the other (locomotion) - rather, it was a much wider concept that referred to an elevation of something that existed in a potential state to existence in an actual state. A statue, for instance, exists "potentially" in a block of marble. "Motion" would be the statue becoming an actual statue, which is accomplished by a Mover (i.e. a sculptor).

Aquinas identifies this Unmoved Mover as a being that is devoid of any Potency, restating the argument in a more succinct manner when dealing with the question of whether or not there is any passive potential in God:

~
"We see something in the world that emerges from potency to act. Now, it does not educe itself from potency to act, since that which is in potency, being still in potency, can therefore not act. Some prior being is therefore needed by which it may be brought forth from potency to act. This cannot go on to infinity. We must, therefore, arrive at some being that is only in act and in no wise in potency. This being we call God." (SGC 1.16.7)
~

So, according to this philosophy, if God is void of any potential, then whatever He is, He is essentially and necessarily; there is no "could be" with God, there's only "is" - purely Actual being. "I AM THAT I AM," in my own mind, makes a great deal of sense when approached from this standpoint.


However, the missionaries I was speaking to told me that God's "plan" for us was to become like Him. That sounded rather strange (I don't think I'll ever be all-powerful or all-knowing), but the missionary also said that God Himself had undergone a similar process. In essence, God had not always remained constant, but underwent some sort of ascension or process of exaltation by which he became God.

I found this very confusing, but later on (quite recently, actually) I was directed towards Joseph Smith's King Follett sermon, as well as sections from an LDS manual on Brigham Young. Joseph Smith, according to the Church's website, said:

~
I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning?... God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. (J. Smith, King Follett Sermon)
~

I cut some bits out for the sake of brevity, but I think the message is still intact. I think it's quite clear that Joseph is describing a being that becomes God, rather than purely actual being that exists all at once. Needless to say, the process of "becoming" necessitates the possession of potential - but, as Aquinas demonstrated, this may very well be impossible.

I think the LDS manual I found on Brigham Young correctly identifies God as the First Cause of all things; for it is through God that all things Move, and through which we ourselves have our being. But this manual also states that the Church's doctrinal position is that a being "progressed to become a God" (it's the Teachings of Brigham Young, "Chapter 4: Knowing and Honouring the Godhead").

Edited by Ipip12, 24 August 2013 - 06:00 PM.
Wrong post.


#2 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 06:00 PM

I realise that was a bit of a long post, but essentially it boils down to three questions/points for a "tl;dr" version:

Aquinas's famous cosmological argument concludes that a supreme source of Motion exists, and that it is the First Cause that sustains all of existence. It also concludes that God is immutable (i.e. unchangeable) and eternal.

- Do Mormons today still believe that God "was once as we are now," and that He progressed to become a god rather than being timelessly perfect?

- If so, does this mean that adherents of LDS doctrine reject classical formulations of the cosmological argument from Aquinas et. al.? If not, how would they resolve the contradiction?

- If Mormons reject traditional arguments, what reason do they have for believing that the Heavenly Father exists at all? I went on Mormon.org | What is the Mormon Church and Religion?, but it lacked substance, essentially being "babies squirm, ergo God exists." If arguments put forward by previous Christian, pagan, and Muslim theologians don't hold, what reasons do Mormons have for believing in God in the first place?

Edited by Ipip12, 24 August 2013 - 06:07 PM.


#3 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 06:11 PM

Sorry if I seemed rather abrupt, but I'm interested in Mormonism because it's the only "traditional" (i.e. family and community-oriented, non-new-agey) faith group I know of that doesn't rely on the basis of classical theism (such as Catholicism or Islam).

#4 Just_A_Guy

Just_A_Guy

    Semi-Senior Moderator, and Repentant Sea-Lawyer

  • Senior Moderators
  • 8487 posts
  • LocationUtah County, Utah, USA

Posted 24 August 2013 - 08:02 PM

No problem, ipip12. As you've noticed, Mormons don't tend to engage with traditional Christian theologians very much. We're not used to thinking about this type of thing (it came up a bit in my deductive/predicate logic courses at BYU some years ago; but I just never found it particularly compelling). My answers to your questions in your second post here would be: --Yes --Yes. I lean towards rejecting your/Aquinas' postulate #6. Eternity is vaster, and perhaps more strange, than we can imagine. For the time being I have no problem saying "it's turtles, all the way down." Intuitively, I'm also not quite prepared to accept postulate 2 as a given. --Because He talks to us, each of us, individually. Mormonism eschews classical arguments in its proselytizing in favor of "bearing testimony"--members' being willing to discuss, at least in general terms, their own unique experiences with the divine.

Edited by Just_A_Guy, 24 August 2013 - 08:08 PM.

About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are darned fools and should stop.
 

--Senator Elihu Root


#5 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 08:50 PM

Hm. Personally, I've always found such arguments quite compelling. But there are at least three arguments offered by Aquinas in support of the sixth contention, that a regression of Moved Movers cannot proceed to infinity: the impossibility of Moving an infinite number of Movers in a finite period of time; the problem of the lack of a prime Mover in an essentially ordered sequence; and the differentiation between principal (i.e. prime) and instrumental (i.e. Moved) Movers. Those are all presented, of course, in Contra Gentiles 1.13.(12-15). Not that this is the place to take them apart (you've already said that Saints don't take a liking to engaging with classical Christian theologians), but they aren't merely assumptions or presuppositions - he does provide support for them.

#6 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 24 August 2013 - 09:02 PM

I would actually be more interested in your rejection of the second contention - that whatever is Moved is Moved by a Mover. Aquinas' argument from Motion is, of course, an argument for a theistic "God the Sustainer."

I was chatting with Mormon missionaries earlier, and I noticed that they called God not only the Creator but also the Preserver of all things. God - the Supreme Controller of the universe - "...has given form, motion and life to this material world..." according to Brigham Young.

But if one rejects the second premise - that whatever is in Motion must be set in Motion by a Mover - then it should become apparent that God is not necessarily the Supreme Controller of all that exists, nor is any Prime Mover such as God necessary required to sustain existence.

If we reject the second contention, then wouldn't it follow that any claim made by the aforementioned Saints regarding the sustaining of creation aren't true? If something can Move without ultimately being Moved by the principal through the instrumental (i.e. if we deny premise #2), then it seems to me as though God is not necessarily the Supreme Controller and Preserver of the universe.

#7 Just_A_Guy

Just_A_Guy

    Semi-Senior Moderator, and Repentant Sea-Lawyer

  • Senior Moderators
  • 8487 posts
  • LocationUtah County, Utah, USA

Posted 25 August 2013 - 07:32 AM

Oh, I'm quite sure that people have engaged the arguments--on both sides--FAR more thoroughly than I'm doing here. ;)

A couple of observations, though:

--I don't think there's any requirement that time be finite.
--Joseph Smith's King Follett sermon uses the analogy of a ring: no beginning and no end, unless it is cut, in which case it suddenly has both. I'm not saying time is necessarily cyclical; but I do think that we don't fully comprehend the notion of "eternity". We accept that a sequence of events will go forward on into infinity; why can't it also extend similarly backwards into infinity?
--Brigham Young was generally suspicious of formal theologians generally (he didn't even get on too well with Orson Pratt, a contemporary Mormon who reveled in arguments like these). I don't think Young would be using the term "motion" in the same sense that I read you as saying Aquinas used it.
--Mormonism does not necessarily hold that God is subject to pre-existing laws--but it doesn't reject the notion either. Mormonism generally agrees that, if you took God out of the universe, the system would be "wasted". But I don't think we officially go so far as to say that the whole works would instantly be extinguished--we just don't talk a lot about God as a "preserver" of that which He already created. We do see Satan as a wanna-be usurper to the throne of God, which creates the impression that at least he thought the universe could continue independently of God.
--On a practical level, I don't see the idea of a chain of gods diminishing God and His role towards us, any more than the chain of people from myself to my father, grandfather, etc. diminishes me and my role towards my own children.

Edited by Just_A_Guy, 25 August 2013 - 07:34 AM.

About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are darned fools and should stop.
 

--Senator Elihu Root


#8 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 10:49 AM

Regarding the question of why some seek to reject an extension of time backwards into infinity, it is important to note that classical theologians argue for a sustainer - one who sustains all things here and now, rather than simply being a "first event" in a temporal sense.

But as for the question itself, I think it's related to the second premise - "everything that is Moved is Moved by a Mover." If the regression of Moved Movers is infinite as you say, then every specific instance of Motion that we perceive today - any physical change whatsoever - must be preceded by an infinite number of Movers and Motions. But if that is the case, then you'll never reach any particular point or Motion, since it's technically impossible to fulfill an actually infinite number of prior conditions.

I hate to employ the cliches, but I think the example of the dominoes representing cause-and-effect relationships is an apt one. Each domino ("something that is Moved") must be knocked over by a preceding domino ("Moved Mover"). But can there be an infinite line of dominoes? If this were the case, then the falling of any particular domino that we see must be preceded by an actually infinite number of prior dominoes falling. But each of those dominoes prior to the specific one we observe must also have an infinite number of prior domino-falls. All of the prior dominoes must fall before the specific one can - but since the prior dominoes are infinite in number, this will never occur.


Another analogy would be a number line that precedes to an infinite negative ("the past") and an infinite positive ("the future"), with some witnessed event being analogous to "zero." An infinite regression would not be to say "just start counting backwards at -1" - it would be to start counting towards zero (the observed Motion at this point in time) from negative infinity.

But we will never reach "zero," or the event which we have witnessed, if we commence at "negative infinity" or conceive of an infinite past. In fact, since each specific point or number on said line must be preceded by an infinite number of prior conditions (i.e. you have to count in order), then you'll literally never arrive at any number - you'll be stuck at "negative infinity" and nothing will ever happen.

Hence in summary we would probably say:

***.: "Everything that is Moved is Moved by a Mover;

1. If there is an infinite regression of Moved Movers, then every individual Moved Mover must be preceded by an infinite number of Moved Movers;

2. If every individual Moved Mover must be preceded by an infinite series of the same, then no specific instance of Motion will ever take place;

3. Specific instances of Motion do take place (which is evident by the senses);

Therefore, there is no infinite regression of Moved Movers.

1. If A, then B;
2. If B, then C;
3. Not C;
Therefore, Not A.

#9 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 10:58 AM

But if one does reject the initial premise that "Everything that Moves must be Moved by a Mover," then as we saw earlier the notion of a sustainer would be unnecessary. As you said, Mormons don't typically think that existence of "the universe" would cease if God didn't exist, or somehow stopped sustaining it. So as you pointed out, Brigham doesn't use "motion" in the same sense as traditional thinkers would.

But if this is the case, and Mormons do really reject classical arguments from natural theology, what would they make of Paul's statement in Romans that "...since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (1:20).

Even I, the gentile, can agree with this statement through the arguments I mentioned earlier. However, you said that Mormons don't typically accept them - instead, they rely on the testimony of God's intervention or work in their lives, and their personal experience with the divine.

But if one rejects those prior arguments, how does one go about establishing a comprehensive system of the divine existence and attributes based on observation of the world?

tl;dr,

If this is all rejected, how do Saints arrive at comprehensive conclusions regarding the existence and attributes of God (i.e. omnipotence, omniscience, perfection) through observation of the natural world?

#10 bytebear

bytebear

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2340 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 11:24 AM

Joseph Smith taught that anything that has no end must also have no beginning. We believe in an eternity that spans forward and backward. The idea that God had a beginning becomes somewhat muddy when you think of God as having a state of being. Jesus was once a man as we are. Does that make him any less eternal?

As for "Everything that moves must have a mover", I am reminded of the story:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"



#11 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 11:57 AM

Bytebear, I think the answer to your question regarding eternality is simply "yes." As I have read it, Joseph Smith uttered the following in one of his final sermons:

~
"If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?"
~

So as you say, in accordance with this Jesus was once a man and he had a Heavenly Father like we do today. But the Heavenly Father was also once a man, and he too had his own Heavenly Father. "Does that make Him any less eternal?"

Yes, it certainly does. Assuming it's true, it also blows any notion of God as the "supreme being" right out of the water. If arguments for the existence of God are rejected, how do we know that the Heavenly Father even exists at all? Are the existence and attributes of God *not* evident from observation of the natural world?

#12 bytebear

bytebear

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2340 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 12:28 PM

Bytebear, I think the answer to your question regarding eternality is simply "yes." As I have read it, Joseph Smith uttered the following in one of his final sermons:

~
"If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?"
~

So as you say, in accordance with this Jesus was once a man and he had a Heavenly Father like we do today. But the Heavenly Father was also once a man, and he too had his own Heavenly Father. "Does that make Him any less eternal?"

Yes, it certainly does. Assuming it's true, it also blows any notion of God as the "supreme being" right out of the water. If arguments for the existence of God are rejected, how do we know that the Heavenly Father even exists at all? Are the existence and attributes of God *not* evident from observation of the natural world?


I absolutely disagree. Two things to consider.

We are also eternal. We have no beginning. Like Christ we were born on Earth but existed prior to that.

Second, we live within the confines of time. I believe that once you become as God is, time is no longer the same, and beginning and end have no meaning.

But, even still, you need to not think of God as a person. God is a collection of persons (specifically we know of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost). All are God. I use the analogy of family. A family is a word that describes a collection of people. There is only one Family of God.

So, we already know that God the Son has a God the Father, so the precedence is already set that God can "have a Father God", but still there is only one God.

Was there ever a time that there was no God? No. Was there ever a time there was no Christ? No, although we know that Christ God transformed from spirit to physical to resurrected and exalted. Does that make him any less God? Was there ever a time when you and I were not in existence? No, we always existed, although not in the same form we are in now. Does that make us any less capable of becoming one with God?

Lastly, what does it mean to become one with God? And when we reach that state, did we somehow replace the God that exists now?

Edited by bytebear, 25 August 2013 - 12:32 PM.


#13 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 03:26 PM

Eternal beings, by the very nature of the concept, cannot have progenitors. By definition, they cannot be created beings, nor can they be begotten by a prior being. If they were, they could not possibly be eternal. I don't really understand what you have said, bytebear, and how it can be understood in light of Smith's statement. As I already indicated, the Prophet said in one of his sermons:


"Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way.... Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?"


Just for clarification, who is the "He" Joseph Smith is speaking of in this passage? I would have thought that it refers to God the Father. If it does, and Smith is saying that the Heavenly Father Himself had a progenitor, then I don't really see how it can be said that God has always existed. If Smith is not referring to God the Father, then who is he speaking of?

Think of your family analogy. Each person in a family has a father - sons and daughters must have a father, and their father is in the family. But even the Father within the "family" of which you speak must have his own father. This is what Smith says: "...where was there ever a father without first being a son?"


So in your "family" we have a Son who has a Father. But it appears as through the Prophet said that if the Son has a Father, then it follows naturally that the Father Himself was also once a son.

Edited by Ipip12, 25 August 2013 - 03:28 PM.


#14 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 03:29 PM

I think this is supported by the Church's doctrine that God the Father was once a man on another planet. As the Church of LDS's website comments, "the doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church." I would maintain that saying a man underwent a process to become God the Father is inconsistent with saying that this Heavenly Father is eternal. A being that is eternally present cannot change.

Have I incorrectly interpreted any of these passages and statements?

Edited by Ipip12, 25 August 2013 - 03:32 PM.


#15 bytebear

bytebear

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2340 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 03:48 PM

I think this is supported by the Church's doctrine that God the Father was once a man on another planet. As the Church of LDS's website comments, "the doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church." I would maintain that saying a man underwent a process to become God the Father is inconsistent with saying that this Heavenly Father is eternal. A being that is eternally present cannot change.

Have I incorrectly interpreted any of these passages and statements?


See, now you have defined God as only God the Father to fit your concerns over how God can progress but Jesus Christ is an example of God progressing. Change your argument to what God the Son went through, how his relationship was submissive to the Father, and is now equal to the father (and yet is not the Father), and your preposition falls apart completely.

"A being that is eternally present cannot change." Jesus Christ proves this statement to be false.

#16 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 03:50 PM

Aren't you just begging the question? But no, that which is eternally present cannot undergo a process of "becoming"; if it does, it means that it isn't eternally present. So the conclusion there is simply that Jesus - as presented here, "becoming" God - isn't eternally present.

Edited by Ipip12, 25 August 2013 - 03:57 PM.


#17 bytebear

bytebear

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2340 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 03:54 PM

Aren't you just begging the question?


No, I have a clear understanding of God, and the LDS view of it. Your interpretation does not account for the life of Jesus Christ, so I must reject it.

#18 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 04:00 PM

No, I have a clear understanding of God, and the LDS view of it. Your interpretation does not account for the life of Jesus Christ, so I must reject it.


I'm afraid I still don't really understand. If you would be willing, could you elaborate a little on the LDS view of God, particularly God the Father (and then later, the Son)?

How do Mormons know that God the Father exists? The earlier poster said it was by delivery of personal testimonies, but what other reasons are there?

#19 bytebear

bytebear

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2340 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 05:05 PM

I'm afraid I still don't really understand. If you would be willing, could you elaborate a little on the LDS view of God, particularly God the Father (and then later, the Son)?

How do Mormons know that God the Father exists? The earlier poster said it was by delivery of personal testimonies, but what other reasons are there?


God the Father is eternal. He has created worlds without end. He is the father of our spirits. The spirits he fathered were created from what are called "intelligence" which are infinite and eternal. He simply started our process of progression. The Earth was created so we could receive physical bodies, be tested through trials of faith, and learn how to return to God. Part of that plan included a savior, which is Christ who was also a spirit child of God. He was the only begotten child of the Father, meaning he is literally/physically the Son of God. Christ was perfect from the beginning, but still required to pass through Earth and gain physical form. his atonement allowed mankind to receive redemption from sin and death. He was the first fruit of the resurrection.

Jesus Christ has been the mediator between the Father and man. He was Jehovah, the God of Israel. He was the redeemer and savior. He was perfected and has a physical body just as the Father has. He progressed to be like the Father, even though he was sinless and God from before the world was.

Now, you are asking what happened before God the Father created his spirit children. Well, we can't really say. It's an eternal process, so again, since there is no end to his creations, there was no beginning. You are asking what the value for infinity - 1 is. Infinity - 1 = Infinity.

Now, we do know that we have the promise to be like God, to share His throne, to inherit all that He has. This is our purpose. This is why the Earth was created, why Christ came to redeem mankind. We are commanded to be perfect like God. We are to have a fullness of joy.

How do we know God the Father. 1) we have prophets who witness of Him. 2) we have writings of those prophets, and 3) we have the Holy Ghost to testify to us that the words of the prophets are true. (Moroni 10:3-5) 4) we live the gospel, and learn to live a godly life. 5) we achieve joy through faith and good works. 6) we covenant with God through ordinances and receive specific blessings by entering into those covenants.

4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Articles of Faith



#20 Ipip12

Ipip12

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 05:22 PM

Okay, seems to make sense on the face of it.

But I was asking about not what God the Father was doing before he created His spirit children, but what He was doing before He became God and what this process of becoming God consisted of.

Or do you think God the Father has always been a God?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq