Excert from 'Summa Thealogica'

Moderators: Desolous, Reliah

Excert from 'Summa Thealogica' 11 Sep 2007 21:24 #6927

  • Twsoundsoff
  • Twsoundsoff's Avatar
Excert from Summa Theologica, by St. Thomas Aquinas


THE EXISTENCE OF GOD (THREE ARTICLES)

Because the chief aim of sacred doctrine is to teach the knowledge of God, not only as He is in Himself, but also as He is the beginning of things and their last end, and especially of rational creatures, as is clear from what has been already said, therefore, in our endeavor to expound this science, we shall treat: (1) Of God; (2) Of the rational creature's advance towards God; (3) Of Christ, Who as man, is our way to God.

In treating of God there will be a threefold division, for we shall consider: (1) Whatever concerns the Divine Essence; (2) Whatever concerns the distinctions of Persons; (3) Whatever concerns the procession of creatures from Him.

Concerning the Divine Essence, we must consider: (1) Whether God exists? (2) The manner of His existence, or, rather, what is NOT the manner of His existence; (3) Whatever concerns His operations---namely, His knowledge, will, power.

Concerning the first, there are three points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the proposition \"God exists\" is self-evident?

(2) Whether it is demonstrable?

(3) Whether God exists?

Whether the existence of God is self-evident?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), \"the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all.\" Therefore the existence of God is self-evident.

Objection 2: Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word \"God\" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word \"God\" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition \"God exists\" is self-evident.

Objection 3: Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition \"Truth does not exist\" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: \"I am the way, the truth, and the life\" (Jn. 14:6) Therefore \"God exists\" is self-evident.

On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition \"God is\" can be mentally admitted: \"The fool said in his heart, There is no God\" (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident.

I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as \"Man is an animal,\" for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: \"Whether all that is, is good\"), \"that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space.\" Therefore I say that this proposition, \"God exists,\" of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (Q[3], A[4]). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature---namely, by effects.

Reply to Objection 1: To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else.

Reply to Objection 2: Perhaps not everyone who hears this word \"God\" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word \"God\" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

Reply to Objection 3: The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us.



Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?

Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Heb. 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.

Objection 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.

Objection 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

On the contrary, The Apostle says: \"The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made\" (Rom. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.

I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called \"a priori,\" and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration \"a posteriori\"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

Reply to Objection 1: The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Reply to Objection 2: When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word \"God\".

Reply to Objection 3: From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.



Whether God exists?

Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word \"God\" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: \"I am Who am.\" (Ex. 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But \"more\" and \"less\" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): \"Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.\" This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2: Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Should jedi train in combat? (Last post by Bareus)
    • What i personally believe is that Jedi should be capable of defending someone and themselves, and in what way you want to do that is up to you. Personally i practice martial arts When we speak about "defending Jediism" then i see it so that we should verbally clear up misconceptions and misunderstandings that may give an individual a incorrect view of Jediism. Or correct any incorrect information given about Jediism that may mislead people
    • Graphene, "super material of the future"... (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • if anyone hasnt heard of this stuff, its awesome video: if youd rather read, from: www.graphenea.com/pages/graphene#.Vyt4W9IrIdU Spoiler: In simple terms, graphene, is a thin layer of pure carbon; it is a single, tightly packed layer of carbon atoms that are bonded together in a hexagonal honeycomb lattice. In more complex terms, it is an allotrope of carbon in the structure of a plane of sp2 bonded atoms with a molecule bond length of 0.142 nanometres. Layers of graphene stacked on top of each other form graphite, with an interplanar spacing of 0.335 nanometres. It is the thinnest compound known to man at one atom thick, the lightest material known (with 1 square meter coming in at around 0.77 milligrams), the strongest compound discovered (between 100-300 times stronger than steel and with a tensile stiffness of 150,000,000 psi), the best conductor of heat at room temperature (at (4.84±0.44) × 10^3 to (5.30±0.48) × 10^3 W·m−1·K−1) and also the best conductor of electricity known (studies have shown electron mobility at values of more than 15,000 cm2·V−1·s−1). Other notable properties of graphene are its unique levels of light absorption at πα ≈ 2.3% of white light, and its potential suitability for use in spin transport. Bearing this in mind, you might be surprised to know that carbon is the second most abundant mass within the human body and the fourth most abundant element in the universe (by mass), after hydrogen, helium and oxygen. This makes carbon the chemical basis for all known life on earth, so therefore graphene could well be an ecologically friendly, sustainable solution for an almost limitless number of applications. Since the discovery (or more accurately, the mechanical obtainment) of graphene, advancements within different scientific disciplines have exploded, with huge gains being made particularly in electronics and biotechnology already. The problem that prevented graphene from initially being available for developmental research in commercial uses was that the creation of high quality graphene was a very expensive and complex process (of chemical vapour disposition) that involved the use of toxic chemicals to grow graphene as a monolayer by exposing Platinum, Nickel or Titanium Carbide to ethylene or benzene at high temperatures. Also, it was previously impossible to grow graphene layers on a large scale using crystalline epitaxy on anything other than a metallic substrate. This severely limited its use in electronics as it was difficult, at that time, to separate graphene layers from its metallic substrate without damaging the graphene. However, studies in 2012 found that by analysing graphene’s interfacial adhesive energy, it is possible to effectually separate graphene from the metallic board on which it is grown, whilst also being able to reuse the board for future applications theoretically an infinite number of times, therefore reducing the toxic waste previously created by this process. Furthermore, the quality of the graphene that was separated by using this method was sufficiently high enough to create molecular electronic devices successfully. While this research is very highly regarded, the quality of the graphene produced will still be the limiting factor in technological applications. Once graphene can be produced on very thin pieces of metal or other arbitrary surfaces (of tens of nanometres thick) using chemical vapour disposition at low temperatures and then separated in a way that can control such impurities as ripples, doping levels and domain size whilst also controlling the number and relative crystallographic orientation of the graphene layers, then we will start to see graphene become more widely utilized as production techniques become more simplified and cost-effective. Being able to create supercapacitors out of graphene will possibly be the largest step in electronic engineering in a very long time. While the development of electronic components has been progressing at a very high rate over the last 20 years, power storage solutions such as batteries and capacitors have been the primary limiting factor due to size, power capacity and efficiency (most types of batteries are very inefficient, and capacitors are even less so). For example, with the development of currently available lithium-ion batteries, it is difficult to create a balance between energy density and power density; in this situation, it is essentially about compromising one for the other. In initial tests carried out, laser-scribed graphene (LSG) supercapacitors (with graphene being the most electronically conductive material known, at 1738 siemens per meter (compared to 100 SI/m for activated carbon)), were shown to offer power density comparable to that of high-power lithium-ion batteries that are in use today. Not only that, but also LSG supercapacitors are highly flexible, light, quick to charge, thin and as previously mentioned, comparably very inexpensive to produce. Graphene is also being used to boost not only the capacity and charge rate of batteries but also the longevity. Currently, while such materials as silicone are able to store large amounts of energy, that potential amount diminishes drastically on every charge or recharge. With graphene tin oxide being used as an anode in lithium ion batteries for example, batteries can be made to last much longer between charges (potential capacity has increased by a factor of 10), and with almost no reduction in storage capacity between charges, effectively making technology such as electronically powered vehicles a much more viable transport solution in the future. This means that batteries (or capacitors) can be developed to last much longer and at higher capacities than previously realised. Also, it means that electronic devices may be able to be charged within seconds, rather than minute or hours and have hugely improved longevity. Consumers can already purchase graphene-enhanced products to use at home. One company already produces and offers on the market conductive ink (first developed by researchers at the University of Cambridge in 2011). This is made by effectively mixing tiny graphene flakes with ink, enabling you to print electrodes directly onto paper. While this was previously possible by using organic semiconductive ink, the use of graphene flakes makes the printed material vastly more conductive and therefore more efficient. Another use for graphene along similar lines to those mentioned previously is that in paint. Graphene is highly inert and so can act as a corrosion barrier between oxygen and water diffusion. This could mean that future vehicles could be made to be corrosion resistant as graphene can be made to be grown onto any metal surface (given the right conditions). Due to its strength, graphene is also currently being developed as a potential replacement for Kevlar in protective clothing, and will eventually be seen in vehicle manufacture and possibly even used as a building material. As graphene has been proven to be much more efficient at conducting electrons than silicon, and is also able to transfer electrons at much faster speeds (relatively speaking, 1000 kilometres per second, 30 times faster than silicon), in the next few years you will begin to see products from consumer electronics companies, such as Samsung (who have been pouring money into researching the uses of graphene in telecommunications and electronics and have already taken out a huge number of patents concerned with the uses and manufacture of graphene in electronic devices) based on flexible, robust, touchscreen devices such as mobile smartphones and wrist watches. This could mean foldable televisions and telephones and eventually electronic flexible newspapers containing all of the publications you are interested in that can be updated via wireless data transfer. Being extremely translucent, in the coming years you can also expect to be able to fit intelligent (and extremely robust) windows to your home, with (potentially) virtual curtains or displaying projected images of your choice. Combining a few of these aforementioned potential uses, can you imagine car security systems that are connected to the paint on your vehicle? Not only would your car alarm be able to tell you if someone is touching your vehicle, it would be able to record that information and send it to you via your smartphone in real-time. It could also be used to analyse vehicle accidents to determine initial contact patches and resultant consequential energy dispersion. Soon we will begin to see clothing containing graphene-enhanced photovoltaic cells and supercapacitors, meaning that we will be able to charge our mobile telephones and tablet computers in a matter of minutes (potentially even seconds) whilst walking to school or work. We may possibly even see security-orientated clothing offering protection against unwanted contact with the use of electrical discharge. What all this means is that this discovery, made by a physics professor and his PhD student in a laboratory in Manchester, using a piece of graphite and some Scotch tape has completely revolutionised the way we look at potential limits of our abilities as scientists, engineers and inventors. The possibilities of what we can achieve with the materials and knowledge we have, have been blown wide open, and it is now conceivable to imagine such amazing prospective situations as lightning fast, yet super-small computers, invisibility cloaks, smart phones that last weeks between charges, and computers that we can fold up and carry in our pockets wherever we go. im at campus and i am finally done with finals, so i have a bunch of time to post right now i prefer not to link to wikipedia but i think this is ok its a(n impressive) list of potential uses en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_applications_of_graphene i first heard of it from an article about body armor www.newscientist.com/article/dn26626-bul...-strong-body-armour/ or if you prefer: the highest caliber they use in this vid is a 45 but there is another from the same channel where they hit the graphene with an ak47
    • White Privilege (Last post by Goken)
    • Quote: EDIT i often post, and then as i read my post i either notice a mistake or i realize an idea that i forgot to mention, or that just belongs, and then i go and do an edit sometimes when i do this, i notice a "thank you" to the original post, which happened here, and i always wonder if the person feels tricked lol no trickery was intended! :laugh: I often have that fear. That's why I don't frequently edit my posts but rather make new ones. Since the "Thank you" was mine this time I can say I did not feel tricked. This time. :evil: :laugh:
    • A Childhood memory (Last post by Prelalo)
    • When I was younger there wasn't a day that I didn't get dirty, I was able test my limitations, what creek beds I could jump across, how fast I could run through a wooded area before I would run into a tree, how long I could hold my breath. I remember one occasion during physical education in school a fellow classmate had vomited, while the students and the gym teacher were waiting on the janitor I decided to get the broom and clean up the mess after a couple minutes of laughter and gross comments the most miraculous thing happened, one student grabbed the dustpan and another grabbed a trash can. That was the first time I was ever proud of myself and it was all because I just wanted to play with my fellow classmates.
    • Brigit Goddess (Last post by MadHatter)
    • The Celtic dities are often mixed and go by many names. Here are a few links that might be of use: www.druidry.org/library/gods-goddesses/brigit www.druidry.org/library/gods-goddesses/brigid-survival-goddess en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigid
    • My thoughts on this months reflection (Last post by MadHatter)
    • Ego Yet Humility This months reflection is ego yet humility. The first thing to do when reflecting on this to define the terms. Using the Merriam Webster dictionary we define ego as “ the opinion you have of yourself or self esteem” and humility is defined as “ the quality or state of not thinking you are better than other people : the quality or state of being humble”. Having defined these terms let us reflect on what the phrase means as a whole and how it applies to us as Jedi in particular. So looking at this phrase we can see that we can have ego but must temper it with humility. We can have high self esteem and a positive view of ourselves/our abilities without thinking that this makes us better as a person then other people. We can realize that we might be better AT something then others but that does not make us better then those without out talent. Its is a matter of balancing these two concepts so that one does not overwhelm the other. But why should we care if one over shines the other? Let us look at the dangers of this. If we have an over abundance of ego or in other words are egotistical we can try to take on more then we can chew and end up folding under the strain at the worst moments. Further it can lead to our discounting ideas and opinions from people we consider less then ourselves just because we are too proud to see the value of them. This forces us to learn the hard way. So what about the other side of the coin? What about having too much humility? What are the risks of that? If we are too humble then we might undervalue our thoughts, emotions, time, and well being. We might give too much of ourselves because we do not value our person enough to say no when we are over taxed. We might not speak up with a good idea because we don’t think its important enough. In short we might allow our own needs to be constantly put beneath others and risk becoming bitter and withdrawn. How does this apply to us particularly as Jedi? Well the entire code speaks to balance and lack of extremes be they good or bad. Too much of anything no matter how great it seems can be a bad thing. I personally love chocolate but too much is going to make you sick. So too can too much humility or ego poison the mind and spirit clouding perspective and making objective views next to impossible. Finally the most important reason to keep a balance is that we as Jedi are to recognize the sanctity of all life. So we cannot over value ourselves nor undervalue ourselves because all holds value in the connectivity of the living Force. Remember the true meat of a coin is not in the head nor in the tails but the metal between the two. So we see that the truly best perspectives are not in over abundance of ego nor humility but in a middle way between the two. To close let us look at a quote from the late Bruce Lee: “ Man should use his ego not be used by it or blinded by it”. This pretty much sums up how we should seek to view humility and ego. Tools to be used but dangerous if we are used by them.
    • Rants far and wide (Last post by Snowy Aftermath)
    • I want someone to physically come to my house and punch me in the face if I ever consider being in a romantic relationship again. What a load of crap.

There are 157 visitors, 5 guests and 31 members online (none in chat): Br. John, Firewolf, Jestor, Lightstrider, Wescli Wardest, Darren, Proteus, Alexandre Orion, Lykeios, Khaos, Kit, tzb, Senan, Cabur Senaar, Goken, Aqua, jheitzenrater, r3dleader, Jonus, Adi, Korvus, Tellahane, Bareus, MadHatter, MartaLina, Arthur H., nidem, Kyrin Wyldstar, Snowy Aftermath, robdegrey, Codama, Jedi Traceur, DanielBenYosef, Emmy, Dalroth.

Follow Us