Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Faith v. Logic

Packrat

Member
I'm curious what arguments each of you would use if to get an Atheist to consider becoming a Christian you needed to win him over with logic instead of appealing to a leap of faith.

This, in my mind, is the only sound way of conversion. And I believe it to be the only way, for the most part, that any atheist will consider becoming a Christian - is if logic and reason is on our side instead of theirs.

So feel free to offer suggestions. Until one's faith is based on reasonable assumptions, their arguments will fall flat. If you wish to list prophecy, please explain how the passage is prophetic and how it was fulfilled and when, etc.

My opinion so far, however illogical or logical it may be, is that either God or universal causes brought about our existence. My concern is why atheists wish to choose the universal cause over God; and if they wish to reject God, then what is their reasoning for choosing a universal cause over God and which 'cause' would this be? And if an Atheist cannot explain the beginning/end/infinity of the universe, what biases or logic leads them to accept a Godless structure to the universe?

Atheists are welcome just as Christians are to participate in this thread and offer their opinions.
 
Faith is a gift (of God). No matter how much logic you apply in any argument, no matter how sound your reasoning, if God has not drawn that person to Christ, it is a waste of time.

And as scripture confirms, we are not born of God by human decision.
 
mutzrein said:
Faith is a gift (of God). No matter how much logic you apply in any argument, no matter how sound your reasoning, if God has not drawn that person to Christ, it is a waste of time.

And as scripture confirms, we are not born of God by human decision.

AMEN!

Faith is a gift.

Compare world view's with the atheist, it's not easy and I can't show you in steps [1, 2, 3, etc.] but it can be done.

Carm.org has great intro on presuppositional apologetics. http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm
 
Packrat said:
My opinion so far, however illogical or logical it may be, is that either God or universal causes brought about our existence. My concern is why atheists wish to choose the universal cause over God; and if they wish to reject God, then what is their reasoning for choosing a universal cause over God and which 'cause' would this be? And if an Atheist cannot explain the beginning/end/infinity of the universe, what biases or logic leads them to accept a Godless structure to the universe?


The only reason, logically speaking, that atheists reject God and accept random creation is the existence of evil. "If God is so all powerful and loving, why does He allow or cause such suffering"? That is basically the entire gist of any logical argument AGAINST God's existence.

However, with that is the other reason why atheists do not convert - and has nothing to do with logic. People generally do not want to submit their lives to another or be responsible morally to someone they cannot see and fully understand. It DOES take a leap of faith - albeit a small one, since God cannot be proven by empirical data - He is inferred. Thus, since some people prefer to live without any such restrictions on their lifestyles, it seems easier for them to ignore something they cannot empirically prove.

To begin conversion (and we can only begin it, God must provide the rest), we must show that Christianity is viable and not a fairy tale. We must show that the preponderance of evidence points to Jesus Christ's resurrection for the sake of mankind. We have to show that the Bible has historical veracity. We have to point to our own experience in times of trials and tribulations - noting how God was present. In the end, our walk in Christ is what usually brings about the beginning of conversions in others.

But only the Holy Spirit can truly open another's heart. All the logic in the world will not help a person intent on NOT converting. A person must be open to the fact that their current way of thinking is wrong. Not a lot of people are ready to do that.

Regards
 
I'm curious what arguments each of you would use if to get an Atheist to consider becoming a Christian you needed to win him over with logic instead of appealing to a leap of faith.

This, in my mind, is the only sound way of conversion. And I believe it to be the only way, for the most part, that any atheist will consider becoming a Christian - is if logic and reason is on our side instead of theirs.

For the record I agree with all the replies thus far, faith is required. That being said if you wanted something practical I'll relate to you two witnessing experiences I've had with atheists at school.

The first was with a guy who was in my weight training class my senior year, and we had several discussions on Church history, Biblical doctrine, archeology & other similar proofs, and even theologically based logic (like Pascal did). Ultimately he never really just accepted Christianity but he did say that he really did want to believe but he just needed a good reason. I emphasized faith, but eventually the issue dwindled and I did the only thing further I could do: I showed him the love of Christ by my lifestyle. I was always kind to him, even befriended him, and wouldn't force anything down his throat. I became and example of Christ to him. That is what truely speaks louder than words. I never saw him convert but if I planted a seed then that was the best and the least I could do.

The second was similar, with a girl who had previously despised me for some unspecified reason, but she lightened up a little bit to a point where we got into a God, science, and logic discussion and I lended her a Christian apologetics book called "Why I believe..." by Dr. James Kennedy and let her read the archaeology and science chapters and she really opened up to it asking all kinds of sincere questions and in the process I turned a previous enemy into a friend. I also showed her the love of Christ and demonstrated the correct lifestyle of a Christian in her eyes. I made my mark by giving her a steadfast example of an intelligent, believing, and practicing Christian, and I believe I did all I could have done. The rest is clearly in God's hands. I believe God will give me a "Well done, mission complete" when I get to heaven and we discuss those times that I witnessed to those two people.
 
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Is there logic in hope? Is hope based only on the higher chances of probablity?

Logic vs faith?
Try logic vs hope or logic vs mercy or logic vs grace.

apples and oranges. The atheist wants logic where there can be none.
 
Try logic vs hope or logic vs mercy or logic vs grace. apples and oranges.

Perhaps. But people don't usually do something unless logic dictates to them that it is the right choice. Um. Minus acts done in anger, lust, etc. etc. But one person's logic may be greater than another's.

Logic vs. Hope

Sometimes hope is logical. Hope may keep you and your body going. If there is substantial evidence against that particular thing in which you vest your hope, then it would be more illogical, perhaps, than logical.

Logic vs. Mercy

If you're faced with killing someone lest you should be killed, then logic would dictate to the atheist to kill that person in such a black/white scenario. If you are a Christian, then logic might dictate that you let the other kill you.

Logic vs. Grace? :smt102 Not exactly sure what is meant by that. It might be akin to Logic vs. Mercy/Justice. I'm sure that God is a logical being. He could have punished us for our own sins instead of saving us, but he shows us mercy instead. I don't think that he was acting illogically when he did that.

Because you can reason even when to show mercy and when not to - the same with grace and taking hope - I believe that logic is a very good tool for governing all or most of your decisions in life.
 
Well, as an atheist, I would need evidence. Imagine someone who grew up and never was exposed to religion or thoughts of the universe (sort of a blank slate). Now imagine that a line of people approaching this person to try to get them to believe their theory of the universe.

For the most part, religions focus on faith. Science focuses on evidence. When you look at a hundred religions and they all require faith, how could you choose among them? So in a sense science stands out as not needing faith and just following where the observations and evidence leads.

Once you start to buy into the idea that evidence is needed to make informed decisions, it is hard to undo that. So to convert an atheist, you need to show evidence. If a god messed with the material world, then there should be evidence left behind. For example, if God answers prayers, then that is a scientific statement. I should be able to observe this.

I am not against the idea of God. If the evidence supports a universe set up by God, then I want to know it. However, from the evidence I have seen, I do not see that as likely.
 
Veritas said:
Just unlikely Quath? Not impossible?
In science, there is no 100% proof. There sre just degrees of confidence in an answer. So I don't like to say things are impossible unless they violate internal consistency. :)
 
Well, I'm glad to hear you don't think God is impossible, I'll hold you to that. ;)

So, would I be correct in saying that you're not 100% sure of anything? To be a 100% sure would take faith, right?
 
Quath said:
In science, there is no 100% proof. There sre just degrees of confidence in an answer. So I don't like to say things are impossible unless they violate internal consistency. :)

Ah science. I like science don't you?
Science is the God-given gift to man so he may experience more of God's glory thereby standing in increasing awe of His creation and power.

Science is one thing... scientific conclusion is quite another. Science provides the data... the scientist provides the conclusion. Two scientists can view sets of data produced by scientific method and come up with two different conclusions.

It depends on what one is looking for as evidence in the first place. All research/study/theory must first begin with assumption. Thus, evidence is sought upon the initial assumption to support that which one is attempting to prove or document. There's nothing adverse to this. It's just the way things are done as they should be within any scientific field of study.

Unfortunately there is no way science can put spiritual things under scrutiny. But what we can do is observe the unobservable through the effects of things like faith and gravity. We don't know what gravity is, we can't put it under a microscope but we can observe it's effect. In like manner faith has it's fruits or results. To say faith can not logically exist is to ignore it's effects, which "violates internal consistency".
 
Imagine someone who grew up and never was exposed to religion or thoughts of the universe (sort of a blank slate). Now imagine that a line of people approaching this person to try to get them to believe their theory of the universe.

This might be a cliche, but... Helen Keller. I'm pretty sure that the understanding of a God is there once children begin to reach an age at which they open their mind and lift their eyes from the pasture to the horizon.

I think I know where you're coming from, Quath. Perhaps it's hard for you to join a certain religion partly because there are so many out there and it's akin to crying wolf. But in that case, I would say use the process of elimination to determine which would be the most logical religion that you would align yourself with should you ever wish to join one.

It would be a long process, but hardly anything worthwhile comes easily, right?

So in a sense science stands out as not needing faith and just following where the observations and evidence leads.

For average John Doe's like myself, though, we have to have faith in those presenting their science to us if we should ever wish to believe in anything. We use faith every day and invest a great deal of it in our fellow man unless we are well versed in the particular field of study which scientists are presenting.

If a god messed with the material world, then there should be evidence left behind.

How do you know that the evidence is not staring you in the face each and every day, though? It goes back to my question of, given the unknown when it comes to the creation of the universe, why does the atheist choose to believe in natural causes or simply nothing rather than God or a higher intelligence if both may be equally plausible? Now I'm not saying that I believe that both are equally plausible. I'm just wondering which you believe is more logical in that scenario and why?

For example, if God answers prayers, then that is a scientific statement. I should be able to observe this.

Well, I believe that I have observed it. Of course you can call it coincidence if you feel like it or use opposing explanations to explain it without involving God.

My older bro and I were sleeping in bunk beds one night in Hawaii. He was on the bottom and I was on the top bunk. We still hadn't fallen asleep yet. Anyway, my bro calls out for my dad because something upset him. It turns out that he told my dad that he saw a hand reach up from under his bed and pull the covers back. I think he described it as a 'green' hand. My dad asked him if he had prayed that night and he said that he hadn't. After that, my dad went back to his room. Was it the power of mental suggestion? Had we watched a horror movie that night?

I, personally, can't remember. But pulling the covers back, where there's physical action, is more than imagination. Was he dreaming? Did he half dream it while he was awake and sleepy? When I came back to that house after a few years of being away, I was alone in the backyard. Coconuts always used to fall off the trees into our yard. One time they smashed my dad's plants that he was trying to grow. Lol. Anyway, one of the neighbor kids came up to me out of the blue and asked me if the house was haunted. I didn't know him. I didn't know where he could have gotten the idea that it was. Anyway, I told him that it wasn't, but I hadn't remembered this incident at the time.

Another time, my grandmother was in a witch's house just doing business with her. She was buying milk, selling it or some other oddity that she's done throughout her life and that we've often done together. ;) Anyway, she steps into the house and while the witch (I use 'witch' because I don't know if she was a wiccan or a member of another religion) is off getting something. She notices a low-hanging black smoke that moves in the corner of one room. Suddenly she gets the urge to get out of the room. She doesn't stay long in the house. Could the smoke have been caused by a heavy low-hanging incense that the witch burns? Was the smoke just there by itself?

Yet another time, my mom was living in a trailor during the first part of her somewhat dissolute life away from home. Some things to consider - she may have been taking drugs. I think she may have been drinking. Maybe she smoked too. At any rate, she had been reading a horror novel. When she decided to hit the sack finally, something appeared to her. It was a smoky form that confronted her. She somehow ended up asking it who had invited it, and it pointed to the book that she had been reading. Was she under the influence at this time? Was she hallucinating? I consider this to be one of the less substantial stories that I've been told first hand.

A friend of mine, who I know across the internet as a former priest, was performing some sort of ritual - maybe a cleansing of demons, etc. - on a house one time. He remarked to me - not to me specifically, but I later contacted him about it - that he had nearly been thrown through a wall by supposedly nothing that was there. I don't know him in real life, so I don't know if he's lying or not.

Now, all these stories I haven't experienced first-hand. I've just heard them from others. I haven't seen any demons, angels, etc. etc. However, I did pray one time for my younger bro (half brother) that his father would come home to him. His father hadn't seen him since he was like four years old or around that age. He was about 13 at the time I prayed I think. This was about a year or so ago. Several months after my prayer, his dad showed up at our house. It turns out that he had walked through some states and ridden a bike for a while as well in order to reach us where we lived. When he got to where we lived, he found out that we had moved. So he went from house to house, knocking on the doors and asking others where we had moved to. In fact, we had moved three times since last he had shown up. At any rate, he finally found us. Could this have been a coincidence? Or did God really answer my prayer immediately when I prayed and it just took a little while for the results to come through? Did his dad just decide it was about time for another visit? I do remember that beforehand he had visited us a few years prior, but my younger brother wasn't there so he didn't get to see him before he disappeared again.
 
To be honest, once we have faith, all logic, reason, evidence, signs, etc. point to God naturally and clearly, but this is only a benefit to believers. They really all do boil down to faith, because they pivot from God's absolute Truth alone. I'd say we can help eliminate stumbling blocks with giving reasonable arguments, but this path is very limited...and only works through the guidance of the Holy Spirit teaching us what needs to be said...it's not of ourselves, and may serve mainlydisciple those who already believe. Certainly, an atheist can benefit from the information, but he will only be able to store it for later use when he is able to interpret through God. The bottom line, and I believe this is Scriptural, God has to open their eyes to who He. I think if we relate, live, and seek to absorb God's Word into our own heart, in humility, others will see our light. Arguments of pride are the worst! I hate when I do that. I think prayer is by far the most powerful tool a believer has to love others with...fast and pray for the souls of others that they may come to Him.

Anyway, all of this must be true, because I have been giving Quath perfectly logical arguments for a long time now, and he still just believes that God may only be possible. :wink: Don't deny it Quath. :-D

The Lord bless you Packrat, I always like your posts and can tell that you love God, and are working it all out. Good.
 
If the evidence supports a universe set up by God, then I want to know it. However, from the evidence I have seen, I do not see that as likely.

But how do you know how God wanted that universe to be set up?
 
Quath said:
For the most part, religions focus on faith. Science focuses on evidence. When you look at a hundred religions and they all require faith, how could you choose among them? So in a sense science stands out as not needing faith and just following where the observations and evidence leads.

If only that were actually true! Science focuses on faith as much as or more than religion often does. Scientific theories are more authoritatively held - in the face of disputing evidence, then those theological opinions that dash across the internet. One example is the geocentric universe. It took hundreds of years of "evidence" to convince scientists that the geocentric model was out the window. Evolution is another such "dogmatically held theory" that refuses to die in the face of opposing evidence.

In science, the currently held model will continue to thrive, even in the face of evidence - IF there is no other more "conclusive" model to hang one's hat upon. That is the nature of the beast. Science, like the rest of society, is restrictive towards anything against the status quo. Even in the face of evidence, men, who have placed their FAITH on a theory (say materialistic evolution) will do whatever it takes to denigrate any conflicting theory. It is quite an amazing thing to watch, from these supposed disinterested scientists who only look at empirical evidence. If you don't believe me, read the scientific journals that belittle any person who holds to a theistic evolutionary theory. Check out the ad hominem attacks

Also, science is not solely based on empirical evidence. Faith is involved - faith that previous preliminary experiments and models were and are correctly done and are in place - for example. Faith is operative when we trust in the judgment of past scientist's hypothesis to an experiment's results. Faith is also present in that we understand an experiment's results ACTUALLY happened! Faith is indeed present in even the modern man's life.

What interests me on this is "why do we disregard inferential knowledge"? Science had not done this in the past. Inferential knowledge is as certain as empirical knowledge. Unfortunately, the Age of Enlightment brought about philosophers who questioned man's ability to know. Philosophers dealt with such sophisms that doubted another's existence! It is not surprising that we are still dealing with "what man knows" and questioning it. However, some scientists think they are philosophers and have claimed our knowledge only extends to the empirical. They should stick to the field of scientific observation...

I would like to see an experiment that measures how many "grams" of love another person possesses. Go ahead and measure it. Determine, if you can, the empirical unit of measurement for a person's love. It cannot be done - and which scientist will then admit that love doesn't exist because it cannot be measured - but only inferred??? Truly, it is a double-standard that has little to do with logic.

Quath said:
Once you start to buy into the idea that evidence is needed to make informed decisions, it is hard to undo that. So to convert an atheist, you need to show evidence. If a god messed with the material world, then there should be evidence left behind. For example, if God answers prayers, then that is a scientific statement. I should be able to observe this.

See above argument. Everything is not subject to empirical measurement. We CAN make informed decisions - there is a preponderance of evidence that converges on the certainty of God's existence. Scientifically, the creation of the universe (or its existence) in of itself is mathematically impossible without some sort of guidance. Random universes that bring us where we are today are practically impossible. This is enough evidence to support the idea that SOMETHING guided the universe's formation. Basically, you are betting on the 1 in 1 x 10_100 or so chance that the universe WAS randomly created. This is not logical. Logically, we can KNOW that God exists. It is something other than logic that denies His existence. Who would take a bet on the above odds? Atheism itself is based on faith - the faith that the 1 out of 1 x 10_100 is the reality. I imagine they'll be running to Vegas and checking out the payout on those odds...

Your existence is proof enough of a Creator of the universe.

Does that mean this Creator is the God of Christianity? No. That takes much more thought. But it is one step at a time.

Regards
 
Veritas said:
Well, I'm glad to hear you don't think God is impossible, I'll hold you to that. ;)
:)

So, would I be correct in saying that you're not 100% sure of anything? To be a 100% sure would take faith, right?
Right. I believe 100% that something exists, but after that everything is less than 100%.

However, in everyday speech, we may talk about facts and truth. But this is more of a shorthand way of saying "I have such high confidence in this that I will just assume it is true."

PotLuck said:
Two scientists can view sets of data produced by scientific method and come up with two different conclusions.
Right. So they then have the responsibility to come up with an experiment that will show which one is wrong.

All research/study/theory must first begin with assumption. Thus, evidence is sought upon the initial assumption to support that which one is attempting to prove or document. There's nothing adverse to this. It's just the way things are done as they should be within any scientific field of study.
That is one of the tough things in science. However, in the end, you have to make a statement that someone in another experiment can reproduce your results. If you are biased, you will eventually be caught.

In like manner faith has it's fruits or results.
I believe that faith exists, I just don't use faith much myself. (I guess I prefer to call it an assumption.) But spirituality can be tested if it affects our world. For example, if someone makes the claim that spirits do our thinking for us, then we can test it with brain damage studies.

Packrat said:
It would be a long process, but hardly anything worthwhile comes easily, right?
From my experience, reduction tends to get rid of lots of religion at a time, not one by one. Deism is the only one that seems to have a shot at fitting what I observe. However, I still find that less likely than a universe without a god.

I'm just wondering which you believe is more logical in that scenario and why?
Well, for example, some Christians make the following claims:
1. God loves me and doesn't want me to suffer in the afterlife.
2. If I do not believe in Jesus/God, I will go to hell.
3. God is all powerful.
4. All I need to believe in God is some evidence.
5. Prayer is a way to communicate to God.
6. God/Jesus wants me to believe in him.

So based on that, I can do a test. I pray to God to reveal himself. However, when I do, nothing happens. So I must conclude that there is a bad assumption above.

There are other possible assumptions I could make for each version of God. Some of these I can rule out by a test. Some by inconsistency.

But at the end, I have to wonder if a universe makes more sense with God or not. To me, postulating an intelligent, all powerful God existing sounds more complex that postulating a universe made of non-intelligent matter existing.

Now, all these stories I haven't experienced first-hand. I've just heard them from others.
Yeah, I have heard many personal stories as well. One woman said she was visited by the Godess Diana. Another woman told me she did a New Age ceremony where she levitated a crystal with the power of the Earth. One woman said that mother earth talks to her in prayers.

So I looked into some of this. After all, some could be true, but I knew that all of them could not be. So I know that people do make mistakes in what they see and hear. I think the human brain is wired pretty well, but it makes mistakes from time to time (like seeing a face on Mars) or hearing talking in white noise).

lovely said:
Anyway, all of this must be true, because I have been giving Quath perfectly logical arguments for a long time now, and he still just believes that God may only be possible. :wink: Don't deny it Quath. :-D
Heh. :wink:

Packrat said:
But how do you know how God wanted that universe to be set up?
From what I have observed, God doesn't really try to reveal himself if he exists. So I have to wonder why after all the extravagant miracles in the Old Testament. I find it to be simplier to assume that God is like Zeus and Odin or a tribal god who was said to have done magnificant things back when people did not keep good records.

So the universe I sees doesn't seem to work well with the image I get of God from the Old Testament.

Sorry to skip your comments, francisdesales. I need to go to lunch. I will try to address them if I don't forget.
 
So based on that, I can do a test. I pray to God to reveal himself. However, when I do, nothing happens. So I must conclude that there is a bad assumption above.

Not really. First off, have you prayed for God to reveal himself to you? Second, which god or God have your prayed to? Third, how have you asked God to reveal himself to you? Keep in mind that no human being - to my knowledge - can see the face of God; otherwise they'd die. Also keep in mind that if you wanted to see Jesus, he's not going to appear again until the Second Coming, so you're out of luck there, too. ;) You could ask him to reveal himself to you in a number of ways. Perhaps a voice? But then you might think you're going crazy. Perhaps a dream? But then it would be only a dream - what you wanted to see maybe. Perhaps an angelic being that speaks with you and leaves a physical mark behind that you can show to others to confirm your revelation or visitation. But in the end, you still have to believe that it happened. What if you're hallucinating, etc.?

I still would encourage you to ask God to reveal himself to you. I'm not certain if he will. As I illustrated in my previous post, sometimes the answer to our prayers takes time. God chose to interact with us within the confines of time.

If someone said over the internet that they were a 65 yr-old man and I wanted them to give me a picture of them so that I knew they were telling the truth, they're not obligated to do so and it may in fact be better not to reveal oneself over the net at times.

Yeah, I have heard many personal stories as well. One woman said she was visited by the Godess Diana. Another woman told me she did a New Age ceremony where she levitated a crystal with the power of the Earth. One woman said that mother earth talks to her in prayers.

I also have a wiccan friend who said that he was visited by a spirit one time and talked with it. The spirit wanted him to do some bad things one time. I don't know whether to trust him or not. The Bible, though, does not deny that people outside of the faith can perform miraculous acts. It even has accounts, as I remember, of sorcerers performing spiritual acts or possessed people prophesying, etc. It doesn't come out and state, "Those who follow the one true God are the only ones with supernatural powers." In fact it denies this claim by the accounts recorded in it.

So I have to wonder why after all the extravagant miracles in the Old Testament. I find it to be simplier to assume that God is like Zeus and Odin or a tribal god who was said to have done magnificant things back when people did not keep good records.

I understand that, and that's become something that I've recently been looking into. I went through the Bible last night, trying to find as many of the major prophets - represented in books - as I could throughout the Bible. A lot of them appeared around the 6-8th centuries B.C. If you consider the amount of time that human civilization has been around for, and then you consider the number of prophets and miracles the Bible takes into account, there aren't as many as one might think there are. Still, certainly, there are a good number more than one might expect to see in the average day. :wink: But it's not like there was an ancient age of miracles and then *boom* we get into modern times and there's nothing. You have to remember that these books and the events in them were recorded over a period of many centuries.

To me, postulating an intelligent, all powerful God existing sounds more complex that postulating a universe made of non-intelligent matter existing.

The universe or multiverse - whatever it is - is anything but simplistic. ;)

So the universe I sees doesn't seem to work well with the image I get of God from the Old Testament.

Then I would encourage you to reassess the perspective you have of God from both the Old and New Testament.
 
Basically, you are betting on the 1 in 1 x 10_100 or so chance that the universe WAS randomly created.

I've always wondered how they come up with those numbers. I'd be interested in hearing more about what sorts of things they take into account. Undoubtedly, at least to me, that is a very rough estimate.
 
There is quite a difference in those caught up in New Age entanglements, and an Atheist. I once new an Agnostic, Atheist by another name, sadly he has passed on now. But he would sit and talk with you for hours, being a friendly sort of person.
But his bottom line always remained the same; “Unless I can meet God face to face, I can’t believe he really exists". Sadly he will get that chance.

Most of these people have reprobated themselves, and are impossible to reach. I have argued one or two down to the point of no further presentable argument, but have never changed ones mind. Even if you could convince them from a reasoning point of view, that still is not saving faith. To each man God has given a measure, and to some he gave none.
 
Back
Top