It is currently Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:18 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:13 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 12310
dartagnan wrote:
There are clear indications that the symmetries of the universe point to a purpose and that is to promote the existence of human life. This is consistent with virtually all theistic belief systems. This in and of itself screams intelligent design. And when I say intelligent design, I mean to say there are indications that the universe was not an accident and the laws therein were tweaked by something intelligent. Likewise, human life was not a "backwater accident" or whatever Russell called it. Atheists keep maintaining these assumptions for their own reasons but the more we learn from science the more we see a design and purpose.

Whenever a theist proposes this, I just have to laugh. "...the symmetries of the universe point to a purpose and that is to promote the existence of human life?"

I'd like to see how Kevin would do in the vast majority of the universe, where it is uninhabitable by human life. If all we were looking at was this planet, this argument might have some weight, but given that this planet is barely a spec of dust in the vastness of the universe, where anywhere else, human life would immediately be terminated, the argument is just stupid. Thinking the universe exists for the sake of this one planet is like saying that all the beaches on Earth exist for the sake of one particular grain of sand.

_________________
"You get to have your own beliefs, and your own wishes, and dreams, and imaginations. What you don't get to have is your own reality." - Sethbag

"Good thing your safe space isn't being violated with the horrors of self-awareness." - Dmetri Cromwell (some guy on Facebook)


Last edited by Some Schmo on Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:11 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13344
Schmo -

The universe has properties such that it is friendly to the existence of life. We know this, because we know at least some life exists. If the universe had different properties, it could've precluded life. Of course, with those universes we could just pick a different target - a particular physical phenomenon - and say it must've been designed because that universe had to have the properties it did in order for that phenomenon to exist. We just need to shift our target based on what is observed. Remember, whatever ever is or could ever be observed, just say "God did it" and you've explained it. A being that can be defined to have the power and intention to create a given phenomenon is a possible creator of any possible phenomenon. Why is the sun yellow? Why do microwaves work? Why are plants green? Why do humans not live much over a century? Why do people get sick? Why are hyper-intelligent cockroaches enslaving the human race? Any thing you do not have an answer for, just say God. But were' totally not talking about an argument from ignorance here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:59 am
Posts: 12310
EAllusion wrote:
Schmo -

The universe has properties such that it is friendly to the existence of life. We know this, because we know at least some life exists. If the universe had different properties, it could've precluded life. Of course, with those universes we could just pick a different target - a particular physical phenomenon - and say it must've been designed because that universe had to have the properties it did in order for that phenomenon to exist. We just need to shift our target based on what is observed. Remember, whatever ever is or could ever be observed, just say "God did it" and you've explained it. A being that can be defined to have the power and intention to create a given phenomenon is a possible creator of any possible phenomenon. Why is the sun yellow? Why do microwaves work? Why are plants green? Why do humans not live much over a century? Why do people get sick? Why are hyper-intelligent cockroaches enslaving the human race? Any thing you do not have an answer for, just say God. But were' totally not talking about an argument from ignorance here.

Well, I completely agree with the thrust of what you're saying here, and was actually thinking something similar earlier. The example I thought of was, "Saturn has rings, therefore, the entire universe was designed so that Saturn could have rings."

The problem with this line of thinking isn't so much the reliance on the fact that the properties of the universe support a particular thing, it's the inference that it was designed a particular way to support one of its many attributes, and claiming that the entire thing was set up with that singular purpose in mind, particularly when the occurrence of that thing is so seemingly rare in the overall "design."

Clearly, people who fall into this mental trap could benefit from learning a bit more about the idea of emergence and looking at natural examples of it.

_________________
"You get to have your own beliefs, and your own wishes, and dreams, and imaginations. What you don't get to have is your own reality." - Sethbag

"Good thing your safe space isn't being violated with the horrors of self-awareness." - Dmetri Cromwell (some guy on Facebook)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:32 pm 
Nursery

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 20
Hello everyone

I am the Christian at intelligentscience.org that was arguing with Bad at badidea.wordpress.com.

I'd like to copy a part of a reply I gave Bad on my blog in the comments section of this post: http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com ... omment-133

I think it will help clarify my point to Bad about explanations. And we can discuss from there. This reply went unanswered by Bad, possibly because he went of vacation shortly after but that's just me giving Bad the benefit of the doubt. Those in italics are quotes from Bad.

Quote:
I would put “uniformity of nature” down as simply a subset of the ontological nature of the universe. All my criticisms are exactly the same for all such claims: there’s no actually explanation going on in this explanation. You keep getting hung up on me calling it an “explanation” and then saying that it’s not really one: my meaning is that it is an alleged explanation (i.e. you call it an explanation, and I refer to it like that), but one that does not actually do what an explanation needs to do. It fails as an explanation of anything.”

Ok, I see what’s going on here. My response to this paragraph will respond to most of the post, so I apologize if it seems like I’ve skipped over some of your points.

Let’s briefly define some terms first. If you disagree with any of these definitions we can, of course, discuss them. Empericism: the idea that the only true knowledge can be gained through the studying of our sense experience. Scientific results are “emperical” results. Metaphysical: describes phenomena that cannot be viewed with our senses or tested as a sense experience. Worldview: a set of presuppositions that cannot be emperically tested that are the basis for one’s beliefs. Everything we reason through is filtered through the basic presuppositions of our worldview. See “Worldviews are for Everyone”.

When I state the premise, “Science requires the uniformity of nature”, this is a metaphysical premise. We can’t test it empirically. When I ask the question, “What worldview (set of presuppositions) better explains our collective presupposition that nature is uniform?”, this is metaphysical question. When I say, “God explains the uniformity of nature”, this is a metaphysical answer. When you say, “Well that’s not an explanation at all, it doesn’t do what explanations should do,” you are expecting an empirical answer to a metaphysical question. In fact, you reject all of my “explanations” as not being explanations. You are correct, they are NOT empirical explanations. But I’m not asking empirical questions. I’m not putting forth empirical evidence. There can be no empirical explanations for metaphysical issues such as the uniformity of nature and the existence of God.

Now, what you might be thinking is something along the lines of, “Well, if metaphysical issues cannot be tested empirically then there is no point in discussing them, they are useless” (I have gathered you lean in this direction, if I’m wrong then please let me know). You’ll have two problems, #1: You’ll have to define your idea of “utility” and prove that metaphysics are indeed useless but #2, (and this is the big one) EVERY SINGLE empirical result REQUIRES a metaphysical assumption. As you’ve touched on, in order to get an empirical result you must first assume that matter exists (a metaphysical assumption). You must also assume that nature is uniform, which is the point of this discussion.

To pass over your metaphysical assumption and focus on the empirical results based on it, is to be irrational and inconsistent. To expect empirical explanations to metaphysical issues (Does God explain the uniformity of nature or the beginning of the universe?) is to be disingenuous.

I said: “I have a simple premise; Science requires that nature is uniform.

You responded: “Only in the sense that we could not do science without that being true. But if it wasn’t true, then we couldn’t do science. So what?”

EXACTLY. Every single empirical result you get is useless without the metaphysical assumption that nature is uniform.

They are simply your beliefs: a hypothetical assertion that you a) can’t provide any reason to believe is true and b) can’t provide any reason to believe is useful for explaining any mysteries about the natural world."

Ok, here’s the problem. You have a worldview too. The most basic presupposition of your worldview is that “God doesn’t exist”. You can say, “No, I just haven’t seen enough evidence to convince me…”, but you start your reasoning with the assumptions that God doesn’t exist. “God doesn’t exist” is what you believe; if you didn’t believe that you wouldn’t be an atheist. You can’t provide any empirical reason that this is true, and “God doesn’t exist” isn’t useful for emperically explaining the mysteries about the natural world.

But, here’s the MAIN POINT: Atheism can’t provide any METAPHYSICAL explanations EITHER. Your atheistic metaphysics has no explanation for the uniformity of nature, because, by definition, the universe was a chance occurance and is unguided by anything, nothing sustains the universe and causes it to be ANY certain way. You have no reason to believe that nature is uniform, you must simply have blind faith that it is so.

If you want to play the game with a being that can do anything, I’ll just counter with a universe in which anything can happen. So what? That doesn’t really explain anything either.”

But see, that’s the problem, you have no metaphysical or empirical reason to think that “anything can happen” in the universe. And if you do postulate some all powerful universe that can do “anything”, you have merely replaced the word “God” with the word “universe” because the word “God” doesn’t allow you to be an atheist anymore. Also, again you are expecting an empirical explanation for metaphysical statements and you are incorrect that Christians believe God can do “anything”.


I'm not sure if that backtracks, or helps, the discussion going on here but I hope it helped it. I look forward to the comments I get.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:11 pm 
Stake President
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:27 am
Posts: 566
Location: Kansas City
CypressChristian wrote:
When I state the premise, “Science requires the uniformity of nature”, this is a metaphysical premise.


Your premise is metaphysical, or uniformity in nature is metaphysical? Either way I disagree. I observe uniformity in nature every day.

_________________
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:37 pm 
Nursery

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 20
Quote:
Your premise is metaphysical, or uniformity in nature is metaphysical? Either way I disagree. I observe uniformity in nature every day.


Of course we see uniformity every day, that's one of my points. However, the statement, "nature is uniform" is a metaphysical statement. In order to empirically test that nature is uniform, we would have test every single square inch of nature to see if it acted the same way. Since that's impossible, we test a miniscule amount of nature and believe the rest follows suit. "Nature is uniform" is a metaphysical belief because it cannot be empirically tested.

Like you said, our sense experience tells us that nature is uniform. The Christian worldview allows us to explain our sense experience while the best the atheistic worldview can do is, "Well nature is uniform because nature is uniform, it is because it is." Which, obviously, isn't an explanation at all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:52 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13344
You can't empirically test a statement like "nature is uniform" at all, because empirical tests already presuppose the truth of that premise. An empirical test, then, would just beg the question.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:02 pm 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13344
CypressChristian wrote:
Like you said, our sense experience tells us that nature is uniform. The Christian worldview allows us to explain our sense experience while the best the atheistic worldview can do is, "Well nature is uniform because nature is uniform, it is because it is." Which, obviously, isn't an explanation at all.


As was explained to you in some detail, one response to this part of the problem of induction is simply to say that we must act as though nature is uniform - regardless of whether it is - because that is the only way rational discourse can take place. If nature isn't uniform, that way lies madness, so we might as well go about acting as if it is. But, even if the atheist does as you suggest, that's one step above simply saying "God's nature is uniform because, well, because it is and the rest of existence is uniform because he chooses to make it so." Not only have you still failed to explain anything, but you've also smuggled your brute fact about the uniformity of nature into a more complex set of claims concerning the existence of a powerful, good, knowledgeable, etc. deity.


Last edited by EAllusion on Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:06 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:16 pm
Posts: 2950
Location: Unassigned Lands
Three explanations that are universally interchangeable:

1. God did it,
2. It happened because of good/bad luck,
3. It was fate.

Natural disasters, outcomes of games of chance, death, finding/loosing car keys, origin of life/species... whatever!

The fact that these "explanations" are so interchangeable shows that they are each far less explanatory than we at first may think.

_________________
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:07 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am
Posts: 6855
CypressChristian, we judge that the universe is most likely uniform in its operations because that explanation actually allows us to make some pretty far-reaching predictions, which so far as they have been testable have proven to be remarkably accurate. Also uniformity has been observed in every case we've been able to test. Given these facts, it makes sense for scientists to assume that the universe really does operate in a uniform fashion until and unless evidence arises that contradicts this notion.

Your argument is really akin to something like "there could actually be a Santa Claus because, even though no evidence of a real Santa Claus has ever been found, and we can actually explain in large part how the Santa Claus myth came about, we haven't actually searched every square centimeter of the entire universe for evidence of Santa Claus, so he might still really be out there."

There are plenty of reasons to believe the universe operates uniformly, and no good reasons to suppose it does not.

_________________
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:14 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am
Posts: 6855
CypressChristian: if we assumed that "God did it" was the explanation for how things are in the universe, how would you explain God? You couldn't, could you? As EAllusion says, you've just replaced one "problem" with an even greater problem.

Sure, the universe is grand and all, but it's far easier to comprehend how this universe could have just existed because it exists, than that there's this infinitely wise old man somewhere with infinite magical powers who can do anything he wants, who created this entire universe 14 or 15 billion years ago, with billions of galaxies containing billions of stars each, black holes, supernovas, all the rest, just so that you and I could be sitting here in our respective man-caves arguing about it on the Internets.

_________________
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 5:56 am 
God

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:13 pm
Posts: 1831
Location: Canada
Cyp...C, my thoughts are in Seth's bag. I get the impression that you think it impossible/improbable that a person not declaring themselves to be Christian could be correct in this discussion? That an Atheist, simply by that fact, cannot arrive at universal truth??? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Roger

_________________
Have you noticed what a beautiful day it is? Some can't...
"God": nick-name for the Universe...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:59 am 
God

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am
Posts: 13344
Evidence can't contradict the uniformity of nature. The very notion of empirical evidence already presupposes that nature is uinform. What the uniformity of nature refers to, in this case, is that the fundamental rules by which nature operates are consistent throughout time and place. If what we know about "natural laws" changes, we just modify what we think natural laws are. When you make a prediction, you premise that prediction on the notion that the future will behave in a way that resembles the past. Since this can change at any moment, no amount of past observation can prove it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:55 am 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 7838
Location: Cave
EAllusion wrote:
You can't empirically test a statement like "nature is uniform" at all, because empirical tests already presuppose the truth of that premise. An empirical test, then, would just beg the question.


And EAllusion sinks CypressChristian's battleship. I have my doubts we'll hear from Cypress again after this one.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:16 pm
Posts: 2950
Location: Unassigned Lands
Christians say: the order of the universe is evidence of God.

So without God, the universe would look disordered? What would a disordered universe look like? Can someone please help me imagine the universe that is implied by this piece of so-called evidence for God.

_________________
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:16 am 
Nursery

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 20
EAllusion

Quote:
"You can't empirically test a statement like "nature is uniform" at all, because empirical tests already presuppose the truth of that premise. An empirical test, then, would just beg the question."


If you would reread my post, you would see that I would agree with this statement, in fact, this is exactly what I have already said. That was the point of bringing in the metaphysics.

Quote:
"one response to this part of the problem of induction is simply to say that we must act as though nature is uniform - regardless of whether it is - because that is the only way rational discourse can take place."


I'm not saying any differently, I agree with this.

Quote:
""God's nature is uniform because, well, because it is and the rest of existence is uniform because he chooses to make it so." Not only have you still failed to explain anything, but you've also smuggled your brute fact about the uniformity of nature into a more complex set of claims concerning the existence of a powerful, good, knowledgeable, etc. deity."


Here's the issue, very clearly: We are doing a worldview comparison. That is all. The question at hand is "What worldview explains the uniformity of nature?" My worldview is that a lawful, rational God created the universe and created it with universal, immaterial and absolute laws that govern nature, making it uniform. This explains the apparent uniformity we see around us. The atheistic worldview is that the universe, everything we see around us (and the fact that we can see at all!) is a product of pure chance, a role of the cosmic dice. Chance is the opposite of uniform, chance is the opposite of law-like. Chance cannot explain the apparent uniformity of nature, cannot explain our sense experience.

As you are suggesting EAllusion, we must all go about our lives as if nature is uniform, believing it IS so and inducing that it WILL BE so. Atheists must believe this with blind faith while Christians, by faith in an rational God, have a reason for this belief. Not having a reason for a particular belief is irrational.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:27 am 
Nursery

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 20
Sethbag

Quote:
"There are plenty of reasons to believe the universe operates uniformly, and no good reasons to suppose it does not."


As my previous post said, and as I explained further to EAllusion, I know that our entire sense experience (observations, tests etc) tell us that nature is uniform. I agree with you Seth.

Quote:
"if we assumed that "God did it" was the explanation for how things are in the universe, how would you explain God? You couldn't, could you? As EAllusion says, you've just replaced one "problem" with an even greater problem."


Two problems
1. That's not what we're talking about. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. We are discussing what explains the uniformity of nature, naturalism CANNOT explain/account for the uniformity of nature while the Christian God does. In order to make this point you must first concede that God IS an explanation for the uniformity of nature, are you doing this?
2. The God of the Christian worldview is unexplainable. That's the point. He created all things. As created beings, how would we have the capacity to describe our Creator? You are basically asking me a question you KNOW is unanswerable just so you can point and say, "See!!" and feel better about having no reason for believing nature is uniform.

I'll do the same in your direction Seth. Explain to me how the universe formed itself.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:29 am 
Nursery

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 20
Roger

Quote:
"I get the impression that you think it impossible/improbable that a person not declaring themselves to be Christian could be correct in this discussion? That an Atheist, simply by that fact, cannot arrive at universal truth???"


I was under the impression that, to the atheist, universal truth didn't exist. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:34 am 
Nursery

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:30 am
Posts: 20
Dude

Quote:
"So without God, the universe would look disordered? What would a disordered universe look like? Can someone please help me imagine the universe that is implied by this piece of so-called evidence for God."


Is that an argument against the anthropic principle or are you just saying that since you can't imagine it therefore it's not possible? Can your provide me with a reason to believe that a pure chance beginning to the universe could explain the order we see around us? Chance becoming orderly all by itself?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:59 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:16 pm
Posts: 2950
Location: Unassigned Lands
CypressChristian wrote:
Dude

Quote:
"So without God, the universe would look disordered? What would a disordered universe look like? Can someone please help me imagine the universe that is implied by this piece of so-called evidence for God."


Is that an argument against the anthropic principle or are you just saying that since you can't imagine it therefore it's not possible?


I can't imagine it and maybe you can help to examine the implied disordered universe that underlies this frequenly used "argument from order".

What would a disordered universe even "look" like? If you see this as a counter-argument -- and maybe it is one -- then the direct response would be for you to give a description of a disordered universe. If it is really a compelling description then it would help the theological argument. If you can't think of something good, then I think it shows a hidden weakness in your position.

Quote:
Can your provide me with a reason to believe that a pure chance beginning to the universe could explain the order we see around us? Chance becoming orderly all by itself?


Where exactly do you get the idea that there was a metamoprhosis from chance (no natural laws?) to order (natural laws?)? Is this a bible-based idea?

_________________
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Bloggist plagiarizes me
PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 3:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am
Posts: 6855
EAllusion wrote:
Evidence can't contradict the uniformity of nature. The very notion of empirical evidence already presupposes that nature is uinform. What the uniformity of nature refers to, in this case, is that the fundamental rules by which nature operates are consistent throughout time and place. If what we know about "natural laws" changes, we just modify what we think natural laws are. When you make a prediction, you premise that prediction on the notion that the future will behave in a way that resembles the past. Since this can change at any moment, no amount of past observation can prove it.


So in other words, the scientists are always right. ;-) I can live with that.

_________________
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 132 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aussieguy55, Google [Bot] and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group