Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See the game, folks? We start out talking about "testable/verifiable" evidence "of" a deity - i.e., unequivocal evidence that demands a deity as the explanation. There is, of course, no such evidence. If Jesus himself were to appear in the clouds, alternative explanations would be offered before his big toe reached the Mount of Olives. A mass delusion! A holographic projection! Aliens! Anything but the Second Coming!
I, being a rational sort, cheerfully acknowledge that no such evidence exists - or could exist. Every Christian apologist would acknowledge this. Every Christian scientist, from Nobel laureates on down, would acknowledge this. And yet they all believe.
In the form of fine-tuning - shorthand for a vast body of evidence across multiple scientific disciplines - I point out that the only evidence that could exist within the natural order is that which "points toward" or "is consistent with" the existence of a deity. I don't insist that it must be interpreted in this way, only that it reasonably can be - as even honest atheists acknowledge.
As they always do, the atheists begin positing alternative explanations. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. No one denies that alternative explanations can be posited. The discussion shows that Cyno's ostensible invitation (on the A&A forum?) was not sincere - he wasn't expecting someone like me to call his bluff.
Harry - because he is dishonest and possesses very limited skills in reasoned argument - then transforms what I have said into an "admission" of "no credible evidence."
See the shell game? In the hands of dishonest Harry, "testable/verifiable evidence" (Cyno's invitation) becomes "evidence that even many secular scientists and atheists acknowledge as consistent with deism and theism" (moi) and then morphs into "no credible evidence" (dishonest Harry). A more blatant example of the straw man fallacy would be difficult to find.
Sure it can, but that's speculation not evidence. We already went over the fact that I thought the same and promoted the idea previously. But realizing there are alternate explanations, more plausible alternate explanations is one of the reasons we can't make the leap to calling it proof. Science wouldn't be science without such a methodology, which makes it ENTIRELY RELEVANT to the conversation. The fact you claim otherwise is your cheap attempt at a bluff, and I'm calling YOU out. You do a lot of lying for a believer. And as a last resort you have to claim Harry has less thinking skills than you, in order to declare a phony superiority that EVERYONE reading this thread is capable of observing just isn't the case.
Irkle has to resort to "I'm smarter than you, so I win", or "I don't believe you, so I win". Well played and astutely convincing. It's hard to imagine anyone here but you thinks you've represented well.
Sure it can, but that's speculation not evidence. We already went over the fact that I thought the same and promoted the idea previously. But realizing there are alternate explanations, more plausible alternate explanations is one of the reasons we can't make the leap to calling it proof. Science wouldn't be science without such a methodology, which makes it ENTIRELY RELEVANT to the conversation. The fact you claim otherwise is your cheap attempt at a bluff, and I'm calling YOU out. You do a lot of lying for a believer. And as a last resort you have to claim Harry has less thinking skills than you, in order to declare a phony superiority that EVERYONE reading this thread is capable of observing just isn't the case.
Irkle has to resort to "I'm smarter than you, so I win", or "I don't believe you, so I win". Well played and astutely convincing. It's hard to imagine anyone here but you thinks you've represented well.
They just haven't got anything beyond 'personal faith', and that's not what this thread is about.
Sure it can, but that's speculation not evidence. We already went over the fact that I thought the same and promoted the idea previously. But realizing there are alternate explanations, more plausible alternate explanations is one of the reasons we can't make the leap to calling it proof. Science wouldn't be science without such a methodology, which makes it ENTIRELY RELEVANT to the conversation. The fact you claim otherwise is your cheap attempt at a bluff, and I'm calling YOU out. You do a lot of lying for a believer. And as a last resort you have to claim Harry has less thinking skills than you, in order to declare a phony superiority that EVERYONE reading this thread is capable of observing just isn't the case.
Irkle has to resort to "I'm smarter than you, so I win", or "I don't believe you, so I win". Well played and astutely convincing. It's hard to imagine anyone here but you thinks you've represented well.
Harry's posts speak for themselves. Do I believe they reflect lower-caliber reasoning skills? Well, yes, indeed I do. As Mystic has suggested, there may also be something of a language barrier. Or, as I suspect, there may also be a degree of intellectual disingenuousness and dishonesty on his part. In any event, everyone's posts speak for themselves in terms of reasoning skills, and I will let mine speak for me. I have been making rather a handsome living for nearly 50 years solely on the basis of my analytical abilities and communication skills. If everyone here believes my reasoning skills are inferior to Harry's or yours - well, so much the worse for everyone here; it doesn't mean squat to me.
You continue to miss the point. We are all speculating about a large body of scientific evidence, not speculating in the abstract. Multiverse theory is naturalistic speculation. Intelligent design theory is typically (but not necessarily) non-naturalistic speculation. You describe your speculation as "more plausible" because you are wedded to a particular paradigm. At this point, the origin of the universe is a mystery that appears to be getting more mysterious every week insofar as the naturalistic paradigm is concerned. Speculation is necessary and inevitable.
You are simply wedded to the notion that, in regard to this vast body of scientific evidence spanning multiple disciplines, naturalistic speculation is inherently more plausible and occupies some higher intellectual ground than deistic or theistic explanation, but it doesn't.
I described your attempts to debate the evidence for fine-tuning as irrelevant because this thread, according to you, was supposed to be about verifiable proof. I acknowledged up front that such proof is logically impossible but that a large body of scientific evidence is at least consistent with deism and theism. Whether you think it is also consistent with naturalism, or that naturalistic speculation is more plausible, is irrelevant to what you said the thread was about.
And so you have full confidence and faith that your Christian beliefs are valid and true, and you know it in your heart to be so, because you have felt the presence of God. Let's forget for the moment about the question of all of those unwashed BILLIONS of other individuals of different faiths who also feel/felt the truth of their different beliefs, because they too are convinced that they feel/felt the presence of God/gods. Because the topic under consideration in this string is not about feelings, no matter how warm and fuzzy those feelings might be.
The topic under consideration is EVIDENCE THAT DEITIES EXIST. The actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead can only be explained as a supernatural act of God. If Jesus was resurrected from the dead, that represents "proof" of the existence of a deity.
When last we left Jesus, according to the "evidence" presented in the Gospels, he had been executed, and his body had been claimed by one of his disciples, Joseph of Arimathaea.
Matt.27: [57] When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
John 19: [38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
Nicodemus, another disciple of Jesus, is also indicated to have been present.
John 19:
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
And so, the body of Jesus, his corpse, was in the hands of his followers. And they had every legal right to bury the body in a place of their choosing. So what did Joseph and Nicodemus do next with the body of Jesus?
Matthew 27:
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
Luke 23:
[53] And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.
[54] And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.
They took the body of Jesus to Joseph's new rock hewn tomb. Why did they take the body of Jesus to Joseph's new tomb?
John 19:
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
Because it was late in the day, and the "sepulchre was nigh at hand."
What did they do at the tomb? They prepared the body of Jesus. They would have washed the body, according to Jewish custom.
John 19:
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
They coated the linen covered body of Jesus in 100 pounds of a mixture of aloes and myrrh. Aloe and myrrh mixed together make a paste. Coating the body of Jesus with 100 pounds of aloe myrrh paste would not have prevented decay, but sealing the body from the air would have retarded the decaying process for a time. The myrrh would also have masked the odor of decay for a time.
So the disciples of Jesus used the tomb as a convenient place to prepare the body. And they prepared it extraordinarily well, coated in a paste of one hundred pounds of very expensive aloes and myrrh. If their intent was to take the body on a journey, the body could hardly have been prepared better.
What do the disciples do next? They "rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed."
Matthew 27:
62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
The next day the Jewish priests, suspicious that the disciples intended to hide away the body of Jesus and claim that he had risen from the dead, asked for and got permission to secure the tomb. The tomb was closed off by a great stone. Prevented from inspecting the tomb for the body of Jesus by the fact that it was a high holy day, Passover and the Sabbath, the Jewish priests placed seals on the stone and set a watch. So the tomb was secured until the high holy day had passed and the tomb could be opened and inspected. But had the priests secured the body of Jesus?
Mark 16:
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[2] And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[3] And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
The tomb was discovered open and empty the next morning. So the obvious answer to the question, "had the priests secured the body of Jesus when they secured the tomb," is obviously NOT! The body of Jesus was missing. Just what the Jewish priests suspected. Who were the last ones to be in clear control of the body of Jesus? His followers! The followers of Jesus were the last ones to be clearly in control of the body of Jesus.
What happened next? A few weeks later the followers of Jesus began to proclaim that Jesus had "risen" from the dead. Again, just what the Jewish priests suspected they intended to do.
And so where was the "risen" man? Oh, he had flown bodily up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds and was gone.
Acts 1:
[9] And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Who witnessed the "risen" Jesus?
His followers and only his followers.
Who witnessed the "risen" Jesus be lifted bodily up into the clouds?
His followers and only his followers.
This is the "evidence" that has been presented by your fellow Christians for the last 2,000 years to assert that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead. And yet we can see from the evidence that is being presented that the empty tomb and claims that Jesus was resurrected can easily be explained through actions taken by the living, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse.
So, In keeping with the subject of this thread it is your task to provide us with the "evidence" that an act of God actually occurred, and that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead. Because if the missing body of Jesus and claims of his "resurrection" can easily be explained as the result of actions taken by his followers, no "evidence of God" has actually been provided.
Can you do it? Or when push comes to shove is your "evidence," your reason to believe, actually nothing more than 2,000 years of unfounded faith, unrealistic claims, and a heaping handful of hot air?
Of course you could simply choose to ignore me. But that would render your continued presence in this thread meaningless and without credibility.
Goodness, I've put a burr under your saddle, haven't I?
Yes, if the Resurrection could be established to a level of scientific certainty, that would indeed be pretty close to proof of a deity.
But this is a good example. If it were to occur today and be covered by CNN, do you seriously think the atheist community and the keepers of the naturalistic paradigm would throw up their hands and admit defeat? Hell, no. It was a magic trick by a cabal of super-sophisticated magicians. Perhaps a mass delusion. A one-time, unprecedented medical occurrence. Aliens. Whatever - but not a Resurrection.
Yes, the Resurrection as a real-world historical event is central to Christianity. The reasons for believing that it actually occurred have been ably argued by scholars such as Gary Habermas, N. T. Wright, William Lane Craig, Michael Licona and many others. They have addressed the points you make, often in published or video debates with the atheists who make them.
I have nothing to add to what these scholars have said. If you believe this is some basis for you to declare victory in this thread - hey, thump your chest like Tarzan and go for it if it makes you feel good.
As I've explained previously, the evidence for the Resurrection is evaluated in the overall context of Christian belief. No one becomes a Christian because he finds the evidence for the Resurrection so compelling as to constitute proof and compel belief.
I love when atheists realize they are getting hammered to such a degree that they feel they must resort to their pet "Gotcha!" arguments in debates where those arguments are transparently desperate. I am waiting for someone to raise the slaughter of the Canaanite women and children. What about THAT, huh?
I'm sure my characterization of Cyno as dense seemed harsh to some, but his response to me reflects the same ... well, denseness, or perhaps willful obtuseness.
OK, he was once a gung-ho practicing believer and now regards it as silliness. Bart Ehrman was once a full-tilt fundamentalist who lost his faith in an instant when he realized the Bible was not literally error-free.
It is highly unlikely that Cyno had a deep, mature faith and a genuine relationship with God. People who do don't just lose it and shift to atheism. I mention Bart Ehrman because his is a familiar path - the believer whose belief is entirely intellectual, shallow and fragile. The first crack causes the entire edifice to collapse.
This was the point of my "Christian foolishness" thread - genuine faith transcends intellectual assent. This doesn't mean it is anti-intellectual by any means, but faith is something far deeper and stronger than mere intellectual assent. This is Christianity 101, right out of the Bible. My guess would be that Cyno's Christianity had all of the trappings and intellectual assent but none of the faith.
When it suddenly didn't seem to make sense, it went poof. Christianity doesn't make sense to anyone who examines it closely, at least not in an entirely logical connect-the-dots sort of way. I've never read a systematic theology that would withstand this sort of scrutiny, and I've read many.
The Truth of Christianity speaks to a deeper level, the level of faith. The absurdity (Tertullian's term), the counterintuitiveness, are no impediment for those with the eyes of faith. Quite the contrary.
We can see in Cyno's posts what he has done. Instead of examining his faith and perhaps going deeper, he abandoned it in favor of a rigid Scientism. He starts threads inviting verifiable evidence of a deity because he doesn't understand Christianity and never did. He doesn't grasp that his invitation is a category mistake.
I find this post fascinating Irkle because it's almost a mirror image of things I have said in the past with regards to people who claim to have 'once been an atheist'.
For years i have found it extremely implausible that anyone who was once an atheist could have some kind or revelation that could suddenly make them find god.
I have accused them that they were not ever really an atheist or that they just hadn't really thought about it hard enough. I have even accused Mystic of this several times (sorry Mystic).
What actually we are doing is taking our own experience and projecting it onto them, as if they should have exactly all the same knowledge to hand and experience that we do. But of course, they don't. Their experience and knowledge is their own so we cant make assumptions about how hard or deeply anybody has thought about anything. We simply don't know.
I suspect Cyno's reason for starting this thread is not that he misunderstands Christianity but that he simply knows that, as you so rightly state, nobody can provide any evidence and Cyno is therefore using the thread to make this point.
Quote:
Scientific evidence can certainly support religious convictions. This is why I am very interested in what science has to say in disciplines that are relevant to my convictions. But science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a deity.
Cyno continues to try to argue with me about the weight of the evidence for fine-tuning. He again misses the point. As I have said, the fine-tuning discussion encompasses a vast body of evidence across many disciplines. Virtually all scientists acknowledge this. I and many others believe this evidence is consistent with deism and theism. It is consistent with my Christian beliefs. If someone prefers a naturalistic explanation, this doesn't threaten me.
Cyno appears to chide me for not discussing this evidence. This is why I gave the one specific example from the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, to illustrate the absurdity of goofs on an internet forum attempting to debate 100 examples of fine-tuning. I have studied what the experts say; I really don't care what Cyno and Harry think and can't imagine why they would care what I think. A vast body of scientific evidence unquestionably exists, and we will each make of it what we will.
The fine-tuning evidence is directly responsive to Cyno's invitation, as responsive as any scientific evidence could be. Secular and even atheistic scientists acknowledge it is arguably consistent with deism and theism. Even I acknowledge there could be other explanations, so I claim no more than that this evidence seems consistent with my Christian beliefs.
Where Cyno seems dense, perhaps willfully so, is in his seeming insistence that responsive evidence must be unequivocal. He seemingly demands evidence whereby, after all possible scientific investigation, scientists would be forced to throw up their hands and say "God is the only explanation."
As I've suggested, I can't even conceive of what such evidence might look like. I've challenged Cyno to explain himself or provide a hypothetical example of such evidence.
I believe he's simply making a category mistake in suggesting that evidence from within the natural order could prove something beyond the natural order. Evidence from within the natural order can only point in one direction or another. I further believe he doesn't understand the nature of Christian faith and has chosen to place himself in the epistemological straitjacket of Scientism.
As you suggest, atheists and theists are in the same boat. We both hold convictions we can't establish with certainty. Apparently because of a falling away from Christianity, Cyno has chosen to place his entire faith in science. I am pretty much the opposite. Notwithstanding a compelling born-again experience, I chose to examine it and see if it could withstand scrutiny from all directions - scientific, experiential, philosophical, theological. I found it could. This doesn't make me a better Christian than someone who just accepts an experience like mine at face value; insisting on examining it is just the way I am.
This thread could just as easily have been entitled "Help me understand religious faith" because the lack understanding is the real issue; the invitation to provide verifiable evidence of a deity just illustrates this misunderstanding. (I really have to wonder if the thread was sincere or whether the hope was that believers would come forth with silly examples that could be pooh-poohed.)
Notwithstanding the Irkle persona, I don't have contempt for atheists like Cyno any more (or less) than I do for many of the believers and even Christians on these forums. My main interests are epistemology - i.e., what does it take for any belief to be justified? - and the process by which people construct their belief systems. Considering the importance of questions like the survival of consciousness and the existence of God, it's surprising and kind of depressing to see the level of thought and effort that many people seem to give to these matters.
You lost me a bit with your statement about the existing Reality as God. In Christianity, of course, God has created our reality and is distinct from it. As I've suggested, I increasingly lean toward idealism, with our shared external reality as a construct of the master consciousness (God) and our individual selves being created bubbles of consciousness within the larger one. (If anyone wants "verifiable evidence" of that notion, I refer you to the peer-reviewed articles comprising Bernardo Kastrup's books THE IDEA OF THE WORLD and IDEATED SCIENCE.)
Just curious where you stand on confirmation bias?
I'm sure you have considered this as you seem to have considered most things intensely.
I'm going back into belief territory here, but I'm just curious: I did note several times you saying things along the lines of you are only interested in the key concepts of science. I believe you said you are only interested in "understanding of the key concepts as they're relevant to my quest, as well as of the debate surrounding those concepts."
You also say here: you are interested to find "what does it take for any belief to be justified?"
Have you considered that in overlooking the some of the small details you might also overlooking vital keys to atheist disbelief in god? I would think that understanding disbelief is as important as understanding belief in order to get the full epistemiological picture?
In saying 'relevant to your quest' - this does suggest confirmation bias in the information you are interested in.
See the game, folks? We start out talking about "testable/verifiable" evidence "of" a deity - i.e., unequivocal evidence that demands a deity as the explanation. There is, of course, no such evidence. If Jesus himself were to appear in the clouds, alternative explanations would be offered before his big toe reached the Mount of Olives. A mass delusion! A holographic projection! Aliens! Anything but the Second Coming!
I, being a rational sort, cheerfully acknowledge that no such evidence exists - or could exist. Every Christian apologist would acknowledge this. Every Christian scientist, from Nobel laureates on down, would acknowledge this. And yet they all believe.
In the form of fine-tuning - shorthand for a vast body of evidence across multiple scientific disciplines - I point out that the only evidence that could exist within the natural order is that which "points toward" or "is consistent with" the existence of a deity. I don't insist that it must be interpreted in this way, only that it reasonably can be - as even honest atheists acknowledge.
So you agree with me that there is no credible evidence, yet when I say this, you say it is a game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
As they always do, the atheists begin positing alternative explanations. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. No one denies that alternative explanations can be posited. The discussion shows that Cyno's ostensible invitation (on the A&A forum?) was not sincere - he wasn't expecting someone like me to call his bluff.
This an internet forum. People will often and naturally take the conversation down relevant side roads. And as someone who uses Bayesian reasoning, it is natural for me to ask which alternatives are more probable, everyone should be doing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Harry - because he is dishonest and possesses very limited skills in reasoned argument - then transforms what I have said into an "admission" of "no credible evidence."
You said you "cheerfully acknowledge that no such evidence exists".
Stop with the ironic dishonesty and ad hominems, I have shown my actual skills in using reasoned argument in mathematics, genuine science, not your creationism, history and logic. Unlike you, i provide actual data that refutes your assertions. You evade my responses because you can not answer them, tell us how you are an intellectual giant while relying on many fallacies (which you then deny doing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
See the shell game? In the hands of dishonest Harry, "testable/verifiable evidence" (Cyno's invitation) becomes "evidence that even many secular scientists and atheists acknowledge as consistent with deism and theism" (moi) and then morphs into "no credible evidence" (dishonest Harry). A more blatant example of the straw man fallacy would be difficult to find.
Then stop making your straw man and then telling us you are making a straw man. You even said you "cheerfully acknowledge that no such evidence exists". How on earth can I be making a straw man when I can quote you agreeing with my point?
Yes, we see the game, you make the claims but can not back them up with evidence. Instead of your usual ad hominems, it is time you started making reasoned arguments for what you believe. Or are you the one who is dishonest and possesses very limited skills in reasoned argument. Because so far the evidence is that you have nothing.
Do I believe they reflect lower-caliber reasoning skills? Well, yes, indeed I do. As Mystic has suggested, there may also be something of a language barrier. Or, as I suspect, there may also be a degree of intellectual disingenuousness and dishonesty on his part.
Lol, no.
On this thread I posted "Fine tuning also applies to a complex god, and the problem is either 1) avoided, or 2) answered with ad hoc excuses without evidence, such as an immaterial being that just happened to know how to create things like universes."
These are questions theists and deists who believe in an intelligent god MUST answer, AND explain how they know. What was your response?
"I have no clear idea of what you are suggesting. You seem consistently troubled by the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent God. You seem consistently to pose questions to the effect of "Where did God get all this knowledge? How did he know how to create a universe?"
The notion of an omniscient, omnipotent God is a philosophical/theological construct. It's definitional. A God for whom your questions were pertinent would not be God as Christians understand him. God as Christians understand him is the source of all knowledge. God as Christians understand him may be an awe-inspiring mystery, but he is not a fine-tuning puzzle."
Not a rational answer, just evasion. I do not normally have waffles for breakfast, but that is what you served that morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
In any event, everyone's posts speak for themselves in terms of reasoning skills, and I will let mine speak for me.
Endlich, it is about time you started supporting your assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I have been making rather a handsome living for nearly 50 years solely on the basis of my analytical abilities and communication skills. If everyone here believes my reasoning skills are inferior to Harry's or yours - well, so much the worse for everyone here; it doesn't mean squat to me.
Once again with the assertions that you are an intellectual. So much for letting your posts speak for themselves in terms of your alleged reasoning skills.
You may have a big, floppy hat with big, bright feathers, and a head band with neon lights declaring what a genius you are, but you certainly have no cattle. I am the one providing the burgers here.
I love when atheists realize they are getting hammered to such a degree that they feel they must resort to their pet "Gotcha!" arguments in debates where those arguments are transparently desperate. I am waiting for someone to raise the slaughter of the Canaanite women and children. What about THAT, huh?
More straw. The problems with the resurrection stories is not a desperate argument by atheists, it is just one more problem for the Christian world view.
That Jesus was resurrected, or that Peter resurrected a cooked fish are not desperate arguments, they are extraordinary Christian claims. To pretend we are desperate is just your usual games.
Stop with the fallacies and provide some evidence for once.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
