Scientific proof that God exists? - page 342.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: (oYo) on February 26, 2015, 12:27:31 AM

Everyone instinctively knows about God and sin. The suggestion by a person who has just heard defining details about God and sin, that he now has learned something new, is simply his automatic method to attempt to talk his way out of something... to make excuses for what he knows deep down anyway.

There are many, and have always been those, who receive and received the message of their salvation with gladness. The message about God and sin is a thing that needs to be brought to our awareness so that we can receive the message of God our Savior properly.

Perhaps you know about the later life of the Eskimo in the picture. Did he turn and repent and believe the good news of his salvation through Jesus? Or did he wander off remaining in his natural unsaved state?

(oYo)

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 500

I like boobies

qwerty555

sr. member

Activity: 405

Merit: 250

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on February 25, 2015, 09:59:04 AM

All atheists are presumably humanists Since what else could they be?

Humanists do not agree with with rebirth even though the evidence is strong; one may search this thread for 'Eisenbeiss'.

all atheists are not humanists ,some are selfish , rotten, cruel, derranged and destructive as are many believers in a God.

There are many sub sections on belief and generalisations placing all non believers in the atheism "box" is too simplistic.

Many non believers, non Christians , non practising Christians and Christians in name by default due to their parents or community are actually practising large elements of this lifestyle in this day and age.

Apathetic agnosticism

Apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence ( or absence of it) has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[6]

To further the debate on the theory that religion is a comfort for the poor and the disempowered here are some links. I would suggest that the weight of evidence suggests that mainstream religions and believing in God has a positive influence in many/most of the poorest Nations and communities. Radicalisation and fanatisism has the opposite and severely negative effect

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116449/religion-provides-emotional-boost-world-poor.aspx

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/do-countries-lose-religion-as-they-gain-wealth-1.1310451

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: the joint on February 25, 2015, 04:04:58 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:01:25 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 12:53:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 11:00:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 03:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

No, they don't. Belief systems needn't be religious. You really ought to stop shooting yourself in the foot by inventing definitions on the fly and subsequently changing those definitions whenever you feel like it.

Again, whether or not you are correct in your belief about God's existence, you are absolutely terrible at rationalizing your beliefs. The subtle tone of arrogance underlining every one of your posts further disservices your position. You contradict yourself repeatedly and your arguments don't make sense. I would stop pretending that you know what you're talking about, even if you got lucky by guessing correctly with 50/50 odds.

You really ought to learn what your atheist opponents are telling you most of the time, because they *are* correcting you in many instances.

A belief that sits on the shelf, so to speak, simply ready to be expressed should the need arise, may not be a religion. Belief systems are always religious when you live them.

Atheism is a way of life. Some of the aspects of atheism may be simply beliefs among certain atheists. They may simply sit there, as beliefs, not being lived or used, but ready to be expressed if there is prompting or need. However, the whole structure of an atheist's life revolves around atheism all the time. If it doesn't, he isn't an atheist. Atheism is, therefore, a religion.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: nsimmons on February 25, 2015, 01:46:53 PM

This is the current trend, claiming atheism is a religion. I have total belief in the the lack of belief. BADecker pulls out the typical shit from fox news, its fairly obvious if you pay attention to the media at all. He doesn't think for himself he's just a parrot, which makes for an excellent zealot.

I caught this just a few weeks ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jcUIu-1p8s

If you have total belief in the lack of belief, then you have total belief that you don't exist. Why? Because in everything that you do and are, you operate by belief. You don't know that anything, even regarding yourself and life, is fact. You may think that you know some things about yourself and life are fact, but because some of things you thought were fact in the past turned out to be different than you thought, how do you know that you know anything as fact? You don't. The things that work out the way you think they will are coincidences. Since you don't know anything as fact, you live totally by belief.

bl4kjaguar

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Did you miss this, nsimmons?
I did not hear you address this case so maybe you could explain the evidence that was presented... you can find it by searching the thread for Eisenbeiss. Looking forward to our conversation.

Quote from: the joint on November 09, 2014, 07:48:36 PM

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on November 09, 2014, 07:10:26 PM

Quote from: the joint on November 09, 2014, 06:41:05 PM

This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.

The joint, although I agree with what you say, I must take exception to your generalization.

Actually, I have asserted the position that God transcends evidence based on pure reason. These quotes are not exact but are close enough:

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on November 05, 2014, 03:34:09 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on November 05, 2014, 03:30:51 PM

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on November 05, 2014, 03:12:07 PM

Quote from: tattooist on November 05, 2014, 02:29:04 PM

aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

I showed that the survival hypothesis is the simplest explanation for these events; that is a separate conversation, but maybe it is important to have it in this thread because it could elucidate the nature of life and God.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9491770

Fair enough

This is a much more appropriate context for the topic of this debate.

nsimmons

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on February 25, 2015, 06:54:12 PM

Your spiritual essence never dies; that essence is the higher self that persists.

The evidence speaks loudly and you do not address it.

There is actually no death in nature; there is only transformation.

This is my point, more unsubstantiated claims. No argument, nothing interesting, nothing to refute. Every statement these two make is begging the question. A circular argument using the bible as the premise and conclusion ad infinitum.

Manifestly different from a real conversation; as the joint has been having.

bl4kjaguar

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 12:49:37 PM

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on February 25, 2015, 12:20:25 PM

That explanation is far from simple as has already been discussed. Search this thread for Eisenbeiss.

Also, your explanation of why everyone needs a ' savior ' is very complicated; it relies on an infallible text and is not open to debate. I already mentioned how faith makes more sense when you have more knowledge, so why do you exclusively trust the doctrine of Paul and ignore the serious possibility that man has changed the teachings?
Where is the REAL explanation for the evidence I have Presented? It will not be found by hiding from the facts of this case. As mentioned, your explanation Would entail a conspiracy without apparent motive. That needs to be explained.

Short and to the point.

Everyone needs a savior from death, except if he wants to stay dead.

Why? Because nobody can keep himself from dying. If people could, there would be thousands of people over 200 years old. People don't die just for the fun of it. Rather, they are forced into it, by old age.

I would like to see clear evidence of anyone over 200 years old. Do you have such evidence? If you do, how about a 500-year-old?

It is illogical to the point of laughable that all 150,000 of the people that die everyday want to die. Rather, it is extremely logical that many of them die despite what they want.

If people die because they can't save themselves, then if they want to stay alive, they need a savior. The savior would have to be very knowledge and powerful to keep people alive, especially if he were going to keep them alive spiritually, and make them physically alive at a later date.

Modern medicine doesn't have this ability. Not by a long shot.

What's so hard to understand about this? It is quite simple and straightforward. Don't tell me that all the people that die, really want to die, and simply don't know that this is what they want. That would be insane.

Your spiritual essence never dies; that essence is the higher self that persists.

The evidence speaks loudly and you do not address it.

There is actually no death in nature; there is only transformation.

nsimmons

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitcool on February 25, 2015, 05:04:26 PM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

No such thing as electromagnetic life just so you know .....

What's your definition of "life"? How many of these criteria has to be met?

1. Consume energy
2. Increase environment entropy
3. Has boundary
4. Can reproduce
5. Can die
....

Is computer virus a genuine life form?

I was having this conversation yesterday. The criteria you've given is required for an organism, a subset of life. The article I was discussing made a case for a self replicating, unbounded molecule as the first "life entity", making it a second subset of life, distinct from an organism. Following this logic, aa RNA virus is life like, as well as a computer virus, provided the ability for random mutation is present. I don't know if any software can truly make random sequencing errors like a nucleotide polymer.

That was my argument away.

About purely electromagnetic life, I would have to think hard about that, matter is just a collection of interactions with fields.

nsimmons

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: the joint on February 25, 2015, 03:56:51 PM

Quote from: nsimmons on February 25, 2015, 01:46:53 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 01:30:59 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:23:49 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 01:16:44 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:01:25 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 12:53:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 11:00:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 03:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion.

I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air.

This is the current trend, claiming atheism is a religion. I have total belief in the the lack of belief. BADecker pulls out the typical shit from fox news, its fairly obvious if you pay attention to the media at all. He doesn't think for himself he's just a parrot, which makes for an excellent zealot.

I caught this just a few weeks ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jcUIu-1p8s

I was hoping you would respond to my response to your post, shown here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10573928

I will think on it and respond in a bit...

[edit]

You've taken a big jump away from empirical science, of which i admit i chased BADecker from the evolution thread to here.

Quote

And if you're suggesting that logic is incapable of making comment about reality..

I don't think that for a second, and did not mean to represent my position as such. I readily admit, we place faith, of such, in our perception of reality. Descartes' demon may well be real, and this world is a deception. And yes I do admit, as well I think most others, that I am taking my existence and my perception of the world on faith. There is an indefinite continuum from what we can say we know to what, at some point, we must assume.

I briefly looked through the pdf you posted, but at 56 pages, it would take considerable study to analyze. Fundamentally, my opinion is such concepts are most likely unknowable nonetheless fascinating to discuss. Anyone who claims to have an answer to an unsolvable problem, particularly in a stone age text, stifles this conversation. I perceive it as a credible threat to our species, whether we exist or not.

bitcool

legendary

Activity: 1441

Merit: 1000

Live and enjoy experiments

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

No such thing as electromagnetic life just so you know .....

What's your definition of "life"? How many of these criteria has to be met?

1. Consume energy
2. Increase environment entropy
3. Has boundary
4. Can reproduce
5. Can die
....

Is computer virus a genuine life form?

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:01:25 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 12:53:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 11:00:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 03:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

No, they don't. Belief systems needn't be religious. You really ought to stop shooting yourself in the foot by inventing definitions on the fly and subsequently changing those definitions whenever you feel like it.

Again, whether or not you are correct in your belief about God's existence, you are absolutely terrible at rationalizing your beliefs. The subtle tone of arrogance underlining every one of your posts further disservices your position. You contradict yourself repeatedly and your arguments don't make sense. I would stop pretending that you know what you're talking about, even if you got lucky by guessing correctly with 50/50 odds.

You really ought to learn what your atheist opponents are telling you most of the time, because they *are* correcting you in many instances.

the joint

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1020

Quote from: nsimmons on February 25, 2015, 01:46:53 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 01:30:59 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:23:49 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 01:16:44 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:01:25 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 12:53:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 11:00:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 03:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion.

I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air.

This is the current trend, claiming atheism is a religion. I have total belief in the the lack of belief. BADecker pulls out the typical shit from fox news, its fairly obvious if you pay attention to the media at all. He doesn't think for himself he's just a parrot, which makes for an excellent zealot.

I caught this just a few weeks ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jcUIu-1p8s

I was hoping you would respond to my response to your post, shown here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10573928

nsimmons

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 01:30:59 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:23:49 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 01:16:44 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:01:25 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 12:53:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 11:00:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 03:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion.

I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air.

This is the current trend, claiming atheism is a religion. I have total belief in the the lack of belief. BADecker pulls out the typical shit from fox news, its fairly obvious if you pay attention to the media at all. He doesn't think for himself he's just a parrot, which makes for an excellent zealot.

I caught this just a few weeks ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jcUIu-1p8s

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:23:49 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 01:16:44 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:01:25 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 12:53:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 11:00:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 03:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion.

I disagree. But thank you for demonstrating to the forum how easy it was making something religious out of thin air.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 01:16:44 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:01:25 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 12:53:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 11:00:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 03:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

If nothing else, you seem to be very religious about stating and showing that you do not have religion.

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 01:01:25 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 12:53:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 11:00:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 03:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

Okay, here's the standard definition:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Explain to me what I'm religious about?

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 12:53:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 11:00:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 03:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

If you maintain the standard definitions of "religion," everyone has religion.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on February 25, 2015, 12:20:25 PM

That explanation is far from simple as has already been discussed. Search this thread for Eisenbeiss.

Also, your explanation of why everyone needs a ' savior ' is very complicated; it relies on an infallible text and is not open to debate. I already mentioned how faith makes more sense when you have more knowledge, so why do you exclusively trust the doctrine of Paul and ignore the serious possibility that man has changed the teachings?
Where is the REAL explanation for the evidence I have Presented? It will not be found by hiding from the facts of this case. As mentioned, your explanation Would entail a conspiracy without apparent motive. That needs to be explained.

Bible evidence is that Paul hasn't changed the teaching of Jesus Christ. In fact, the evidence is that Paul upholds the teachings of Jesus.

In the few places that their teachings might appear to be at odds, the two of them are talking to different groups of people who have different customs, and the teachings are made to fit the customs of each group while maintaining the basic teachings similarly for both groups.

The main Christianity teachings are the same between the two. Among them are:
- Jesus, death and resurrection for the saving of souls
- A final resurrection for all the dead
- Salvation to a joyous, eternal life with God for all those who do the work of God, which is believing in Jesus for salvation
- Damnation for all those who do not do the work of God, i.e., believe in Jesus for their salvation.

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: BADecker on February 25, 2015, 11:00:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 25, 2015, 03:47:24 AM

Quote from: darkota on February 25, 2015, 03:12:59 AM

Hundreds of years from now there will be explanations, as we have explanations now for what was deemed miraculous in the past.

For sure, but the religious folk will just simply move the goal posts.

For sure. But since nobody lives without religion, Buffer Overflow, darkota, and myself are manipulation the forum "goal" posts right now, as we post.

Cheesy

If you redefine the concept of "religion" sure you can insist everyone worships something. It doesn't take much creativity to argue that a person is religious about something if that is their goal.

Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 342. (Read 845809 times)