Jump to content
Science Forums

The kca, a logical argument for the existence of god.


RevOfAllRevs

Recommended Posts

In the Original Post of this thread the door is opened for logic as soon as a syllogism is presented and though it was badly constructed, Rev, that's what you did. I repeat it here exactly as it appeared:

 

It goes like this in its most simple form. The premises are ;

 

1...Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

 

2...The universe began to exist.

 

3...Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. This cause is God

 

Firstly those are not all premises. It is indeed a syllogism in which #1 is the major premise, #2 is the minor premise, and #3 the conclusion. However the first problem is that there are two (2) conclusions, one being "the universe has a cause" and the second, "this cause is God". Since the word or concept of "God" only appears once, the syllogism is broken, fallacious, or as Infinite Now pointed out, a true non sequitur. It is basically just patched on by you and attaches to nothing.

 

Please note that here I am not attacking your intellect, simply the quality you display, or lack of it, in constructing a proper line of logic. Perhaps you were in a hurry. OTOH since it has been over 20 years since I took a course in Symbollic Logic at George Washington University and my memory isn't as good as it used to be, I thought I might need a little refresher before I posted. So I took the time to read and you may check my accuracy here Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Since, as you pointed out, Rev, this is the Theology subset of a Science forum, and you said

 

The KCA is a form of ontological argument

 

and since the dictionary defines "ontological" as

 

Of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God

 

I maintain that it is perfectly acceptable to discuss how religious people try to wrestle with Science by seeking parity, especially when the pattern I am detecting here is rehashing arguments that have been thrashed ad nauseum and decided 50 to 80 years ago, even before much new data has only served to strengthen Science and weaken the most common areas that PO religious zealots, ID and Creation. They are of a kind, dependent on the God concept, and have direct bearing on KCA, which in itself is by no means new nor accepted.

 

Incidentally you touched on one important difference between Science and Religion - how they deal with mistakes and fraud. It only took 40 years to throw out Piltdown Man and almost 400 to set the record straight about the fact that the Earth is not the center of the Universe and nobody was imprisoned or burned alive.

 

The 2nd and 3rd time you quoted my response you talked about ID. If you scroll back you will see I was talking about your bringing up BBT and I even linked Georges Lemaitre. In no way was I trying to discredit BBT Standard Model. I simply pointed out that over 50 years ago the man mainly responisble for BBT corrected the pope when he tried to link BBT with Creation. Did you not bother to actually read my response or the wiki? You are welcome. of course to ignore any post you choose, but it makes little sesne then to type a response to something you did not read. If you merely skim and type, that's just not good debate technique or etiquette.

 

The 4th time you quoted me was about your inability to make your point regarding KCA and for exactly the same reasons as the above sentance regarding lack of research and/or comprehension. I specifically charged you then, and again now, with preaching and proselytizing.

 

In fact further evidence of your unwillingness to check yourself is in your calling to task my spelling of "occasionally". I'd like to direct you here

 

occasionally: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

 

and here

 

Common Spelling Errors

 

and even here

 

The Spelling Society : Principles and Practicalities.

 

where you will see, for example, that the spelling society uses occaisionally in it's first sentance, quoted here

 

Like all human systems, spelling occasionally needs modernizing. For optimal literacy, spelling should show pronunciation, and pronunciation should determine spelling

 

Apparently you don't even check yourself when you fault others... not exactly a cause for confidence.

 

The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.

-- Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary (1764)

 

 

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities

-- Voltaire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only claim that I am amateur astronomer and love astronomy as my qualifications to comment on this. Nevertheless the standard big bang theory model is the only near universally accepted theory of origins. The reason for this is that the BB is the only theory with empirical as well as mathematical evidence to support it. This theory claims that the universe began about 14.7B years ago and it’s the only universe. Its not eternal because we have not found enough mass to close the universe, actually we haven’t found nearly the mass needed to close the universe. If we could find more than 89% mass and close the universe it may stop expanding and slam into a big crunch, then 'rebound' again in an eternal cycle of crunch and bang.

 

The premise that the universe began cannot be supported with big bang cosmology.

 

The physics of the big bang is general relativity. GR breaks down at the point of a singularity. It is possible to use big bang cosmology to model the universe up to the point where the universe was a singularity. At that point the physics breaks down and we can say nothing beyond that point using that theory.

 

This certainly does not mean that big bang theory says the universe began 13.7 billion years ago. It simply means that general relativity has successfully modeled the past 13.7 billion years beyond which it can do no more. We need new physics (something compatible with quantum mechanics) to go beyond the singularity.

 

I cant think of one thing that does not have a cause for its existence! EVERYTHING has a cause for its existence. Even a virtual particle has a twin. Can you name anything that does not have a cause for its existence?

 

If you think this inductive reasoning proves that the universe has a cause then you've incidentally proved that God has a cause. If you propose that God does not have a cause then the deductive reasoning above has a counterexample and proves nothing about the universe. Your argument defeats itself.

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev, that is how it is when the argument fails on simple logic. No one can win such argument.

But, I suppose you can talk about faith. Or you can structure an argument from some well known fundamental scientific premise such as an atom or genetics; and deduce that discounting higher power is not possible. Or, somthing else that makes some sense. You do not have to be convincing, but you must be persuasive to some extent. An observer has to have something reasonable to weigh on.

But, the way your argument started here, it made no sense. You can not start with God and end with God. You have to start with something other than God, and end with God.

 

Sorry, that is not the lose lose situation I was talking about.

 

The KCA stands on its premises, and the logical flow there of. They haven't even been dented here. Having said that I already explained to you that we are speaking about the KCA so when we start with God (the cause that cause the universe to begin to exist) within the parameters of the KCA we have to agree that the cause (God) is eternal or atemporal. The first premise states anything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. Being eternal God did not begin to exist. According to science time was created in the big bang, so the cause that caused the big bang to bang was not effected by time (because it had not been created yet). Therefore infinite regression (which I suppose is what your concern is) is defeated. If God (the cause) wasn't eternal you would have a good point. God not beginning to exist defeats your claim.

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may recall that some of your responses were nothing more than links and a note saying something to the effect of "this disproves your theory". Bristling and name calling doesn't change that. There is more than enough weight in what you are arguing to have to resort to that.

 

Your friendly neighborhood moderator.

 

Thank you. Where did you come from?

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that the OP has still failed to address the criticisms of his points.

 

What is the OP? Any way if that is internet speak meaning me please be specific. I have attempted to respond to all of the relevant criticisms. BTW some of my rebuttals were met with silence. So I assumed the silent ones agreed with me and required no further conversation.

 

; }>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise that the universe began cannot be supported with big bang cosmology.

 

The physics of the big bang is general relativity. GR breaks down at the point of a singularity. It is possible to use big bang cosmology to model the universe up to the point where the universe was a singularity. At that point the physics breaks down and we can say nothing beyond that point using that theory.

 

I disagree. The universe began to exist 14.7 years ago + or - . Your not the first person to attempt to use that argument. You are correct that our physics breaks own at around T-0 and I have not claimed to use BB cosmology before that. The KCA picks up and uses logic and reason not phyicis to describe what happens ‘before ‘ T-0.

 

This certainly does not mean that big bang theory says the universe began 13.7 billion years ago. It simply means that general relativity has successfully modeled the past 13.7 billion years beyond which it can do no more. We need new physics (something compatible with quantum mechanics) to go beyond the singularity.

 

I agree that we can only go back to T-0. Again anything before that is addressed by the logic and reason of the KCA not Physics.

 

If you think this inductive reasoning proves that the universe has a cause then you've incidentally proved that God has a cause. If you propose that God does not have a cause then the deductive reasoning above has a counterexample and proves nothing about the universe. Your argument defeats itself.

 

Yes I agree. God did not have a cause of its existence and its spelled out in the premises of the KCA. What I mean by that is “anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence” As I explained to Lawcat time was created just after the big bang , nanoseconds after. So anything that happened ‘before’ T-0 has to be atemporal, that is existed forever and or not effected by time. Therefore God or the cause had no cause for his beginning and that effectually stops infinite regression. Its not turtles all the way down! The argument is sound and logically valid.

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the OP?

OP="Original Post" / "Original Poster"

BTW some of my rebuttals were met with silence. So I assumed the silent ones agreed with me and required no further conversation.

Not likely.

 

As was pointed out to you, you presuppose the existence of God, and employ a totally fallacious "logic" to arrive at concluding His existence. You refuse to even contemplate our objections. Therefore there is little to gain by repeating ourselves, and there is no arguing your flawed logic if you refuse to see the flaw.

 

Using your logic, it is possible to say the following:

 

1) There is a universe.

2) Something must have started it.

3) Thus there is an invisible fluffy Easter Bunny hiding cosmic eggs all over the cosmos.

 

It simply does not follow, but the above is logically exactly the same as your KCA. All that change, is the names. And apart from the above "conclusion", there is zero further evidence. Do you see why the KCA doesn't hold?

 

You state that there is no evidence to the universe's origins. And this absence of evidence then serves to prove the existence of something. It just does not hold. It does not follow. This "KCA" is a failure of logic and reason.

 

You cannot deduct something from a presupposition. It's not logical. It's not even an argument. That boat simply won't float here, nor anywhere else people hold reason to a pretty high standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the OP? Any way if that is internet speak meaning me please be specific. I have attempted to respond to all of the relevant criticisms. BTW some of my rebuttals were met with silence. So I assumed the silent ones agreed with me and required no further conversation.

 

; }>

You didn't reply to my rebuttal. Should I assume that you agree with me? B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we have to agree that the cause (God) is eternal or atemporal.

No, that is not required for your argument. Your argument requires that God has no cause, and has the effect, which then must be the original cause. Since Universe had a cause it must have been God. Your argument is bootstrapped. It fails ab inito.

 

According to science time was created in the big bang, so the cause that caused the big bang to bang was not effected by time (because it had not been created yet).

No. Just no. And I do not want to even venture into what "time" is, how "time" was created, whether "time" existed before big bang, whether time is only possible in spacetime, etc., even if big bang is true in your most trivial "poof" "hocus pocus" sense.

 

Some of the gratest minds approach these subjects with abundance of caution. But you venture into those areas with no fear to prove God, as if you physically validated all that on site. With minds like yours we need no universities. All we need is a Sunday school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't reply to my rebuttal. Should I assume that you agree with me?

 

The reason I did not reply to that 'rebuttal" was because it was nearly all OFF TOPIC and personal.

 

I do not usually respond to such nonsense but here you go, its the last time that I will answer off topic silliness.

 

You want I should list the forums you've already posted the same stuff on? And then stalked off in a temper? This forum isn't your normal talking shop. Most people are here to learn things - I certainly am. You can't learn because you won't consider that your beliefs might be wrong. Maybe "troll" isn't quite the right word, but it comes awfully close.

 

I want you to stop the personal remarks that’s all and stay on topic or take your remarks elsewhere. You want I post your personal history here ? Isnt that against this sites TOS? If you insist and the posts you post aren't actually me you will be in big trouble. I wouldn’t stoop so low as to stalk you. And I fully resent and will report you if you keep on calling me a troll so that was a good save. Please refrain and desist. If you want to continue this conversation E mail me or PM me this isn’t the venue for personal attacks.

 

Here's what I said:

Don't bother "bringing this up in another thread" for my benefit, please. I assure you, I've heard it all before. And so, I expect, have most people here. I replied to your original post because you were claiming that your beliefs were based on logic. I refuted on logical grounds, and nothing you have said has changed my position.

 

And I rebutted your claims. The KCA is a standard cosmological argument that has passed muster by hundreds of professional debate forums.

 

 

You will not convince me that my money should be given to a church rather than a charity, that my time should be spent on my knees in prayer or worship rather than doing something worthwhile, that I should conduct line-by-line study of a book of folk-tales rather than a science textbook.

Did I accuse you of asking for money? It's quite clear that I was talking about organised religion in general. I'm sure you never pass the collecting plate in your churches. Wriggle and spin again.

 

Well what does that have to do with the KCA the orginal post or otherwise? You are the one talking about general and personal subjects, and you have the nerve to call ME a troll?

 

. I don't sling mud, and I strongly object to the accusation. :

 

You call this debating. What does it have to do with the KCA?

 

espite what you - and several hundred other religious zealots - have said on this forum, there is NO convincing evidence for God. Not the Christian god, or Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Norse, Greek, Roman…

 

Please back up that claim.

 

I don't need to listen to your arguments to know that you have nothing new and convincing. If you did, I wouldn't be reading it on this forum. It'd be on every front page in the country and all over the internet.

 

You may learn how wrong you are.

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is not required for your argument. Your argument requires that God has no cause, and has the effect, which then must be the original cause. Since Universe had a cause it must have been God. Your argument is bootstrapped. It fails ab inito.

 

Wrong to the extreme lawcat. Its very important that god/the cause be eternal. If god were not eternal then the KCA would be invalid. Why? Because god/the cause would have a cause for his existence and that would open up the problem of infinite regression, which would destroy the logical flow of the KCA.

 

No. Just no. And I do not want to even venture into what "time" is, how "time" was created, whether "time" existed before big bang, whether time is only possible in spacetime, etc.,

 

I was simply explaining why you were incorrect. It was necessary to define how the cause could exist.

 

even if big bang is true in your most trivial "poof" "hocus pocus" sense.

 

Please back up that claim. The KCA is a valid cosmological argument for the existence of God, its that simple. I have posted definitions and validations of why the KCA is a valid argument you have provided only your own speculation devoid of evidence or proofs. It doesn’t work that way here. (that was what I was told anyway.)

 

Some of the gratest minds approach these subjects with abundance of caution. .

 

Maybe some great minds do (please provide a few examples as I am not sure what you mean) in other words I am formally asking you to back up that claim.

 

But you venture into those areas with no fear to prove God, as if you physically validated all that on site. With minds like yours we need no universities. All we need is a Sunday school.

 

What Sunday school do you know that teaches the KCA? Your claim is not valid. I don't know why you think I am not cautious, I use an overwhelming about caution and never once have said my ideas are the only explanation. I bend over backwards to say competing ideas are valuable and that I respect others views, thats more than I get. So please support your claims with at least some examples instead of your pure speculative thoughts.

 

One more time ; The KCA is a valid cosmological argument for the existence of God. I did not invent it. These arguments are taught and debated at major universities. Really lawcat what is your problem? This is a discussion of and about the KCA not church or Sunday School here is a link where a professor debates Dr William lane Craig about the KCA. I suggest you read it. Your replies are precisely why I asked that anyone that wasn’t sure of what the KCA was to read up on it. Its (the KCA and these type of arguments) pretty common fair at most universities philosophy depts.

 

Project MUSE - Canadian Journal of Philosophy - J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument

 

 

Nevertheless, my best to you;

 

; }>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<rantings snipped>

Well, well... for a man of the cloth, you get awfully angry over trifles.

 

If replying to your insults is going offtopic, I plead guilty. Maybe "guilty by reason of insanity" would fit better - I should have known that anyone who claims that God can be proved by logic wasn't going to be worth debating.

 

Please do go ahead and report me. I'd say that the temper of your posts is considerably more violent than anything I've said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev, you have been told by many here that your argument is a failure. Trust me, posters here are not telling you that because they fear your argument, but because it truly is a failure.

 

An argument must start with what we know. An argument can not start with: God has no cause, and is the original effect; and end with: therefore god is the original cause. Premise and Conslusion are one and the same, we know neither, and both are based on faith. The fact that you bring Big bang into this is nothing but puffery and pretense.

 

An argument can start like this:

You start with definitions, of what you know: There is an entity which we call God, of which we know nothing. Therefore, God is imagined to exist for the purposes of the argument. There is also an entity called Universe of which we know something.

 

Then you state the purpose: The purpose of the argument is to explore the possibilities of relation of the two entities, God and the Universe. The entities will be considered as sets and subsets.

 

First possibility is that two entities are separate sets with no common elements.

Second possibility is that the two entities have a common cross section but are not subsets of each other.

Third possiblity is that God is a subset of the Universe.

Fourth possiblity is that the Universe is the subset of God.

 

Then, you can explore implications of each possiblity, all you can deduce is the likelihood of each.

 

And so on and so forth. This would be valid philosophical inquiry in my view, although many here would probably despise such non-empirical fancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Original Post of this thread the door is opened for logic as soon as a syllogism is presented and though it was badly constructed, Rev, that's what you did. I repeat it here exactly as it appeared:

 

I think it was beautifully presented. And it was accurate. The period should of indicated that "the cause was God" was another thought and not a part of the three premises. (I edited this today)

 

Firstly those are not all premises. It is indeed a syllogism in which #1 is the major premise, #2 is the minor premise, and #3 the conclusion. However the first problem is that there are two (2) conclusions, one being "the universe has a cause" and the second, "this cause is God". Since the word or concept of "God" only appears once, the syllogism is broken, fallacious, or as Infinite Now pointed out, a true non sequitur. It is basically just patched on by you and attaches to nothing.

 

The cause being God should have been in brackets (to go with the period) so the (main) three premises are

 

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

(2) The universe began to exist.

(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

So I agree that the mention of God should have been in brackets and that it wasn't clear. However for a forum post that's not the end of the world is it? That said, nothing is changed because as the argument goes along it does say that God is the cause. Remember a the KCA is a cosmological argument for the existence of God.

 

In every scholarly publication the premises of the KCA are called premises. Sorry you disagree. Maybe you meant they were not premises after the inclusion of my blunder?

 

I am aware that a syllogism is an argument involving three propositions: a formal deductive argument made up of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. An example is “all birds have feathers, penguins are birds, therefore penguins have feathers.” The KCA has three premises and they create a syllogism. So, if that's the case please excuse the mistake it was not intentional. I would not of intentionally done it because of ethics and of course I knew that my debunkers would be all over it.

 

Please note that here I am not attacking your intellect, simply the quality you display, or lack of it, in constructing a proper line of logic. Perhaps you were in a hurry. OTOH since it has been over 20 years since I took a course in Symbollic Logic at George Washington University and my memory isn't as good as it used to be, I thought I might need a little refresher before I posted. So I took the time to read and you may check my accuracy here Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Well, not a hurry it was just a blunder.

 

Since, as you pointed out, Rev, this is the Theology subset of a Science forum, and you said and since the dictionary defines "ontological" as

 

As I said I admitted to a mistake. However the argument does go on to make a link to God. In any case I am attempting to stay away from true theology because its impossible to discuss it with the restrictions placed on it by the forum rules. This falls into more of a philosophy discussion of metaphysics etc.

 

I maintain that it is perfectly acceptable to discuss how religious people try to wrestle with Science by seeking parity, especially when the pattern I am detecting here is rehashing arguments that have been thrashed ad nauseum and decided 50 to 80 years ago, even before much new data has only served to strengthen Science and weaken the most common areas that PO religious zealots, ID and Creation. They are of a kind, dependent on the God concept, and have direct bearing on KCA, which in itself is by no means new nor accepted.

 

The KCA is a old argument that was redone by William Craig. Its more philosophy than science. However I think that for better or worse science will meet religion in the near future. I think it could be beneficial if its similar to popular book ‘the science of God’.

 

Incidentally you touched on one important difference between Science and Religion - how they deal with mistakes and fraud. It only took 40 years to throw out Piltdown Man and almost 400 to set the record straight about the fact that the Earth is not the center of the Universe and nobody was imprisoned or burned alive.

 

No comment. As per rules.

 

The 2nd and 3rd time you quoted my response you talked about ID. If you scroll back you will see I was talking about your bringing up BBT and I even linked Georges Lemaitre. In no way was I trying to discredit BBT Standard Model. I simply pointed out that over 50 years ago the man mainly responisble for BBT corrected the pope when he tried to link BBT with Creation. Did you not bother to actually read my response or the wiki? You are welcome. of course to ignore any post you choose, but it makes little sesne then to type a response to something you did not read. If you merely skim and type, that's just not good debate technique or etiquette.

 

No I am fully aware of the Popes role, however that does not detract from its validity. The BBT is an necessary component of the KCA.

 

The 4th time you quoted me was about your inability to make your point regarding KCA and for exactly the same reasons as the above sentence regarding lack of research and/or comprehension. I specifically charged you then, and again now, with preaching and proselytizing.

 

And you were incorrect IMO. I did not preach and I did not attempt to convert. Still I do not see how you came to that conclusion. In a court outside this forum I am sure my comments would not be seen as preaching OR proselytizing. And I feel was baited. A member asked me how many people did I convert etc. and questions that related to religion, so now that I know what happened I am simply more careful.

 

In fact further evidence of your unwillingness to check yourself is in your calling to task my spelling of "occasionally".

 

Ha ha. I critiqued a member one time after he questioned my integrity and my intellect. I check myself often but sometimes miss things, hey I am not perfect (and if I finished this sentence its an infraction isn’t it?).

 

I would like to stay on the topic of the KCA from here on out.

 

; {>

 

I will correct the original thread. If it had been brought to my attention I would of corrected it already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, well... for a man of the cloth, you get awfully angry over trifles.

 

If replying to your insults is going offtopic, I plead guilty. Maybe "guilty by reason of insanity" would fit better - I should have known that anyone who claims that God can be proved by logic wasn't going to be worth debating.

 

Please do go ahead and report me. I'd say that the temper of your posts is considerably more violent than anything I've said.

 

Please stay on topic.

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rev, you have been told by many here that your argument is a failure. Trust me, posters here are not telling you that because they fear your argument, but because it truly is a failure.

 

The KCA had never been defeated in formal debate or here. I asked you to be specific. Which premise do you challenge?

 

An argument must start with what we know. An argument can not start with: God has no cause, and is the original effect; and end with: therefore god is the original cause. Premise and Conslusion are one and the same, we know neither, and both are based on faith. The fact that you bring Big bang into this is nothing but puffery and pretense.

 

The argument did not start with God has no cause! Read the premises again please. Try premise number one. No they are not based on faith. The KCA is based on reason and logic. Shall I provide definition and explanation of a VALID cosmological argument you?

 

An argument can start like this:

You start with definitions, of what you know: There is an entity which we call God, of which we know nothing. Therefore, God is imagined to exist for the purposes of the argument. There is also an entity called Universe of which we know something.

 

This is getting redundant lawcat. A valid cosmological argument for the existence of God follows rules. I did not make up the KCA. Your ideas may have merit if you wanted to discuss something other than the KCA.

 

Then you state the purpose: The purpose of the argument is to explore the possibilities of relation of the two entities, God and the Universe. The entities will be considered as sets and subsets.

 

First possibility is that two entities are separate sets with no common elements.

Second possibility is that the two entities have a common cross section but are not subsets of each other.

Third possiblity is that God is a subset of the Universe.

Fourth possiblity is that the Universe is the subset of God.

 

Then, you can explore implications of each possiblity, all you can deduce is the likelihood of each.

 

See above. The KCA meets ALL criteria for a valid cosmological argument. Does anyone else here think the KCA is not a valid cosmological argument? You are speaking of something other than a valid cosmological argument. Its not even on topic.

 

And so on and so forth. This would be valid philosophical inquiry in my view, although many here would probably despise such non-empirical fancy.

 

You view has merit but its not a valid formal cosmological argument. I would be happy to debate you in another thread but this one only concerns the KCA.

 

Thanks for your reply...

 

; {>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...