How Would You Show That God Is Moral?

[elguanteloko]

While omnipotence may certainly be understood as having little necessary connection to morality, being omniscient would appear to involve at least two things understood to inhere in good in perfect form:

1. A knowledge of precisely what is, indeed, moral, and

2. A perfect knowledge of the consequences, no matter what the complexity or dynamic interplay between them, of any and all human actions/choices made at any given time and under any given circumstances or conditions.

At least a part of the answer to this question then, pivots upon God's perfect knowledge of what the moral actually is and is not, and then upon how human acts and choices condition the nature of our relationships to each other (why an act or set of acts affecting the integrity of our relationships/culture are understood as ethical or not) in relation to those standards. If God has a perfect knowledge of what the moral is, then if would follow that he has (being omnipotent) an equal ability to correctly indentify that state of affairs to us.

I can agree with everything you just said here and I still don't see how that helps God's cause. If anything, this makes it seems like you are clarifying why God has even more fault than people normally realize when he doesn't do anything to stop harm from happening.

No, not really. You are asking us to prove that God's perception of morality is consistent with your own perception of it, an entirely different and inherently circular proposition (you would have to first define your own understanding of it, and your criteria of so conceiving it, before you could compare and contrast God's version).

Forget about me, I'm not proposing pretty much anything here. I'm questioning your ideas and showing them to YOU to be incoherent or clearly wrong to YOU through questions and scenarios that arise from the consequences of what you think. I show you the consequences of what you are saying and you recognize them as wrong afterwards or at least that something isn't working as well as you previously thought.

Edited December 4, 2011 by elguanteloko

[supersnail]

Some of your examples seem designed to elicit more an emotional response like, "So they would approve of a bystander during a rape?" Like how callous.

It's not that simple, and I think you know that. I'm sure readers are more intelligent than that.

I suppose I haven't been answering your question the way you want it to be answered, but let me ask you a question or two, elguanteloko, instead of spelling things all out or spending the time to write something more substantial that may just get lost.

Do you think it would be better for someone to not have lived at all than to survive something awful and later receive salvation and exaltation? Assuming for the sake of argument (and perhaps this is a big assumption for you) that those are possibilities.

Are you against human reproduction?

For that matter, suicide is very real, very much in the real world. I'm not trying to be insensitive, and I hope none of the examples discussed in this thread are too close to you. There is an underlying rational point if you think through what your answers would mean. If your answer to both of those questions is "no" (I don't assume it is "no" to both or either), how might that change your view of a doctrine of a plan of salvation based on matter and laws, which a powerful God must nonetheless work with if He wants to get something done that nobody else can do?

[elguanteloko]

Some of your examples seem designed to elicit more an emotional response like, "So they would approve of a bystander during a rape?" Like how callous.

It's not that simple, and I think you know that. I'm sure readers are more intelligent than that.

That's where their ideas are taking them.

I suppose I haven't been answering your question the way you want it to be answered, but let me ask you a question or two, elguanteloko, instead of spelling things all out or spending the time to write something more substantial that may just get lost.

Do you think it would be better for someone to not have lived at all than to survive something awful and later receive salvation and exaltation? Assuming for the sake of argument (and perhaps this is a big assumption for you) that those are possibilities.

I have no idea.

Are you against human reproduction?

No.

For that matter, suicide is very real, very much in the real world. I'm not trying to be insensitive, and I hope none of the examples discussed in this thread are too close to you. There is an underlying rational point if you think through what your answers would mean. If your answer to both of those questions is "no" (I don't assume it is "no" to both or either), how might that change your view of a doctrine of a plan of salvation based on matter and laws, which a powerful God must nonetheless work with if He wants to get something done that nobody else can do?

I'm sorry but I really just don't get what you are trying to say here. Could you please be mores specific?

[Deborah]

I'm questioning your ideas and showing them to YOU to be incoherent or clearly wrong to YOU through questions and scenarios that arise from the consequences of what you think. I show you the consequences of what you are saying and you recognize them as wrong afterwards or at least that something isn't working as well as you previously thought.

Well, you aren't very successful then. I'd like to know why you think it is your duty to show someone else how incoherent they are, which apparently they are to you but not to themselves.

[supersnail]

That's where their ideas are taking them.

The problem of suffering isn't new. Usually when someone raises a disagreement and has obviously worked out a position it is prudent to address the best opposing arguments already available instead of caricaturing the ideas of some mostly anonymous people. I don't know you, but I gather you aren't like some random agnostic on the street in an undeveloped country who just ran into the missionaries and has some reservations related to theodicy. You seem educated and have access to the Internet at least.

On the other hand, it's not necessary to be some kind of theologian or divinity student in order to have faith. Most people don't think about intellectual minutiae on a daily basis. If what they do think works for them and their faith isn't upset by the contradictions you perceive, what is your point?

I understand some people in despair may be frustrated when other people seem to be unperturbed and seek empathy by sowing disquiet. I don't think that's the case here.

You could tease some words out of someone and construe them as their glorifying a heartless bystander, but as I've said, belief in and worship of only one god, who is powerful, has moral advantages compared with alternatives. Monotheists aren't being taken by "their ideas" to where you think they are being taken to.

Yes, the idea is out there that suffering is punishment for sin. I'd agree there is a problem with that. Some people who think that, that the sufferers just deserve it or brought it on themselves somehow, are truly callous. Those who don't see that suffering is mostly caused by others with agency, who have an obligation to do good, are idolaters worshiping a false god. That doesn't describe the true church of Jesus Christ.

[supersnail]

Do you think it would be better for someone to not have lived at all than to survive something awful and later receive salvation and exaltation? Assuming for the sake of argument (and perhaps this is a big assumption for you) that those are possibilities.

I have no idea.

Alright.

Many people do have an idea about that, and it is easier for them to believe that God is good. God could have chosen for us to not exist at all. That's the alternative to living in a world with suffering for a relatively short time and being saved to a degree of heavenly glory. Salvation and exaltation are brought about through the operation of principles. To say that God should or could just save and exalt 7 billion people by fiat without us having to experience anything ignores that we are already here on earth with bodies. We can assume our presence here is necessary. Is the suffering worth it? If you don't believe in salvation and exaltation at all, of course not.

[supersnail]

Are you against human reproduction?

No.

If you yourself would have a child knowing that he or she could experience suffering in life, how do you presume to convict God for the same thing?

[Loran Blood]

If I stop a bullet that's going straight to your head shot by a murderous enemy of yours, I'm not taking any responsibility from the person who shot it. Once again, we do NOT need to allow innocents to be harmed in order to say people will be responsible for their actions. Your murderous enemy should be put in prison whether or not you die and what I'm saying is that God could stop every unjust damage to people by others if he wanted to but he doesn't.

1. The fact that God does not stop a specific number of unjust actions has no necessary relevance to the question of whether he should, always and under all conditions, based on no other criteria other than that he can stop such actions, stop such actions. The question here is really whether God's omnipotence can be used as a trump against his omniscience, and under what conditions. Just because God has the power to stop any and all unjust actions against others, does not necessarily imply that God's perfect knowledge and wisdom allows him the liberty of actually intervening in every and all instances of unjust actions given the entire background of the plan of salvation as regards mortal conditions relative to any particular individual.

2. You're assumption that God does not, at any time, stop such actions appears to be an argument by assertion only. How do you know that God has not stopped countless unjust/immoral actions by individuals against other individuals, and even entire instances of organized warfare or criminal depredation, on numerous occasions? What would count as evidence that he has intervened in such situations?

If in a world where God does his job and stops unnecessary harm from happening

The term "unnecessary" is a caveat introduced into the argument that comes packaged with its own set of philosophical problems. What is "unnecessary" from an severely limited, mortal perspective may appear to have an entirely different relevance from an eternal perspective in which all the consequences of an action are perceived as related to each complex and dynamic aspect of a person's entire life experience and individual psychology within an eternal frame of reference.

Upon what criteria do you determine what is "necessary" and "unnecessary' across the entire panoramic spectrum of an individual mortal probation within the context of a "plan of salvation" as understood within the restored gospel (which is what we must relate all arguments of the "If God could, then why doesn't he" form as traditional among secular humanists)?

How do you reconcile the concept of free agency and the necessity of being able to will and cultivate our own morality structure (and be responsible for it), as understood in the Church, with a situation in which God intervened in literally every immoral/unjust action that affected an innocent victim or third party? If we are not essentially free to do evil, how then could we be free to do good? If God should intervene to stop every evil action, should not then God intervene to see to it that good is done as well? Should not God simply do all of the good humans do for them, seeing that no conceivable good act could not have been done better, more effectively, and in far greater perfection if God does it himself than if human's are left to do it in a lower, less refined way?

Why give human's free agency at all, when God has the far greater capacity to do what humans should do (good) and prevent what humans should not do (evil)? Why not simply create them as happy automatons two have never, and are not capable of, eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Why indeed?

Edited December 4, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

God could have chosen for us to not exist at all.

In traditional Christianity, this is a possible option. In the restored gospel, it isn't. In LDS theology, the ultimate essence, or fundamental entity (intelligence) that is the nucleus of consciousness, self consciousness, and individual personality, is eternal, uncreated, and incapable of creation or annihilation in any absolute sense. It always existed, in some form, and hence, God did not have the option or power to choose our nonexistence.

He could have chosen not to create us in the sense of our birth into the spirit world as sons and daughters of God, but LDS theology even precludes this, as a matter of fundamental gospel principle related to God's character and attributes. His entire purpose and desire, in creation qua creation, is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." That he could have not created us is beside the point, as he never would have made that choice, as a perfect and exalted being, given his fundamental motives that are at the core of his perfect, exalted character.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

I can agree with everything you just said here and I still don't see how that helps God's cause. If anything, this makes it seems like you are clarifying why God has even more fault than people normally realize when he doesn't do anything to stop harm from happening.

It would help if you would actually engage the points and arguments I've made, point by point, and show, if you can, why you think they aren't relevant points, or why they are philosophically weak, instead of brushing them aside with vague references to your original thesis, while the arguments I've put forth demonstrate a number of potential holes in that very thesis. If we are going to discuss why the gospel cannot be true (If God existed he would not behave as secular humanists think he should), then let's do that.

Forget about me, I'm not proposing pretty much anything here. I'm questioning your ideas and showing them to YOU to be incoherent or clearly wrong to YOU through questions and scenarios that arise from the consequences of what you think. I show you the consequences of what you are saying and you recognize them as wrong afterwards or at least that something isn't working as well as you previously thought.

But you won't engage in actual philosophical discourse when your beliefs and arguments are challenged. Perhaps you should be forgotten.

[supersnail]

That he could have not created us is beside the point, as he never would have made that choice, as a perfect and exalted being, given his fundamental motives that are at the core of his perfect, exalted character.

I wasn't really comfortable with my sentence myself to be frank. I didn't want to suggest that God potentially makes wrong choices, for example.

Can we compare how things would be if we didn't ever have bodies, with how things are: we have bodies and the opportunity to be saved and exalted? Even if the first wasn't really an option?

Skepticism about God's goodness in light of suffering has a kind of nihilist implication, is what I'm getting at without being too rigorous. If there really is no alternative to the plan of salvation, atheists can still contemplate whether nonexistence would be more "moral" than existing with a body on earth at some point, with all the hazards of mortality that temporarily entails, as a step toward salvation and exaltation. You're saying nonexistence (in terms of intelligence and--in a different way--existing as spirit children or not, and even not having mortal bodies) was never really on the table, and I think I understand that.

Edited December 4, 2011 by supersnail

[rodheadlee]

Morality is a socially constructed definition, meaning each person has their own definition of it.

So is God moral according to his own moral law? Yes.

Do I submit myself to God's moral law, and make my moral law the same as his my moral law? Yes.

Therefore, in my opinion, he is moral, according to the moral law I adopted from him.

In other words which law are you talking about? And who is the authority behind that law?

Good is a matter of opinion as well. Talking about how a person's actions are good needs a reference point; that is, which person are you talking about? Something that is good to me is not necessarily good in your opinion and vise versa.

Not particularly. My position is the one I am most comfortable with. Therefore, it is most practical for me to support it over your position. Similarly, you may hold your position because it is more practical to you. This says nothing about the morality and goodness of God.

The way you know God is moral and good by understanding his Point of View, and having it 'click'. This isn't the case for you, I believe, correct? Because of that, our moral views will differ, and so I cannot show you how he is moral or good; it is something I may simply state that I believe instead. =)

Part of the problem, I think, is that you are looking for some 'substantial' 'concrete' form of morality to base your OP on, but that doesn't actually exist. We obey the laws because we love God; we submit ourselves to those laws. That is what makes them 'moral laws' for us. In other words, they aren't 'inherently' moral, but instead are instead 'constructively' moral. We got our laws from our God, and he got them... and he got them from his Father maybe... etc. But the point is, you are trying to look at it with logical postivism, and that doesn't quite work very well for morality, imho. =P

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

Excellent post.

[Loran Blood]

That does not prove God has given us the capacity to do good. Even dogs and monkeys can be trained to be good.

No, they quite patently cannot.

[Loran Blood]

It means that war is waged to gain wealth. Do you really disbelieve such a thing happens?

I think this is far to oversimplified. Most wars, if the 20th century is any guide, are waged to obtain power, domination, and control, states of affairs within which wealth a natural concomitant. Criminals rob banks and such to obtain wealth. Most wars are waged to conquer and dominate others. The taking of wealth as spoils of such warfare is a sweet but peripheral effect of conquest, but it is the aphrodisiac of power that animates war as such. Secondarily, and perhaps even more sternly, is the hatred born of the compartmentalizing of others into out-groups that become dehumanized and hated for nothing they have done, but who they are. Lynching a black person in the old South required no taking of wealth. The satiation of the hatred was enough. Burning down the house of a rich person leaves little to plunder, but the satisfaction of envy is its own reward.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Loran Blood

[supersnail]

I think few atheists would openly admit to judging people in undeveloped countries for having children despite the chance their children could end up dying from malnutrition, malaria, pneumonia, AIDS, or a car accident. Except for instances due to rape, they choose to bring people into the world (and I'd argue there is nothing wrong with that) more or less knowing what could happen. Yet, when it comes to God having given mortal bodies to the 7 billion people who live on this planet, who have agency and collectively the power to end these deaths, some presume to haul God into a court room and convict Him as an accessory to murder using different standards. Even though suffering is unavoidable at this time if people are to have mortal bodies as part of the plan of salvation, and there really isn't an alternative.

So, without contesting "Morality is a socially constructed definition, meaning each person has their own definition of it" (insofar as any word is "constructed"), I do think there is a dissonance in some atheists' position that they can see themselves without a change of definition, reference point, or theory.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, Minority Report.

Yep that's the one!

[mfbukowski]

There would be no 'murder' charges but 'attempted murder' is enough for me. I definitely prefer a scenario in which a murderer was stopped right before doing harm to my child and put in jail for attempted murder, than a scenario in which my child is brutally murdered but the murderer gets more time (or all time) in jail. You aren't taking the time to think this through, mf, what's going on with you?

"Attempting murder" actually occurs in the real world, I don't know if you've noticed that. Grabbing a gun happens in the real world. Walking towards your victim occurs in the real world. Getting into your house and pointing at your head occurs in the real world, too.

Uh huh.

Definitely minority report.

Good idea.

Now you just need some oracles in a vat.....

Seriously- is this some science fiction idea? (already done) What are you proposing here? How do we make the world this way? So this is a hypothetical world?

How would the world be if this were the case?

[elguanteloko]

Seriously- is this some science fiction idea? (already done) What are you proposing here? How do we make the world this way? So this is a hypothetical world?

I'm proposing that because of what I said, saying that God preventing undue harm to people restricts free will (or diminishes it) is wrong.

I don't think God exists so it should be OBVIOUS that I'm not advocating a world where God intervenes.

[KevinG]

I read it carefully - it was a flawed argument.

At what degree of seriousness of harm or sin and at what time do you feel a moral God suspends the agency of His subjects?

Your example above seems to indicate before "unjust harm" is done.

Take an example from the Scriptures (LDS Standard Works) where you feel God acted immorally by not stopping unjust harm and we can discuss the real example from our doctrines in stead of some hypothetical gun to the head case.

You should explain how you feel this action of God was immoral and how your idea of a moral God would have acted.

Then we can revisit the idea of eternal justice, agency and morality without resorting to hyperbole or an articficially stunted definition of morality.

For kicks you can still answer my unanswered question - what is the difference from preventing sin (unjust harm) and violating agency?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZZH043pdBM

Despite Eloko's attempts to justify avoiding addressing my questions to him I was on Minority Report on page 7 of this thread.

Does anyone even watch the videos I post? ;-)

[elguanteloko]

If you yourself would have a child knowing that he or she could experience suffering in life, how do you presume to convict God for the same thing?

That I know they will suffer does not mean I would let them suffer if I knew they would suffer at moment X and I could prevent it. Living a life without suffering is not an option we have.

Life can be a wonderful thing but if you know your children will suffer too greatly in the particular conditions under which they will be born and raised, then by all means don't have them. This is human, talk, though, because we have no options and no knowledge like God does so, again, this is irrelevant to God.

[elguanteloko]

Alright.

Many people do have an idea about that, and it is easier for them to believe that God is good.

...that's what's in question, if you haven't noticed. Saying "well, people believe so and so" won't help.

God could have chosen for us to not exist at all. That's the alternative to living in a world with suffering for a relatively short time and being saved to a degree of heavenly glory.

You aren't getting it. It doesn't matter how big the candy is at the end for having endured suffering. The whole point is that allowing such suffering is not justified in the first place.

Salvation and exaltation are brought about through the operation of principles. To say that God should or could just save and exalt 7 billion people by fiat without us having to experience anything ignores that we are already here on earth with bodies.We can assume our presence here is necessary.

You take "begging the question" to a whole new level.

Is the suffering worth it? If you don't believe in salvation and exaltation at all, of course not.

You would be wrong. I think some suffering is indeed worth it. The point is that suffering is a price we have to pay if we want to live, but it wouldn't have to be like this if God wanted it to be so. If you think God has good reasons to allow evil, then give it a try... if you haven't noticed, this is what we've discussed for the last like 6 pages in this thread. How come you aren't even getting the question? Is it too obscure and confusing?

Edited December 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

The problem of suffering isn't new. Usually when someone raises a disagreement and has obviously worked out a position it is prudent to address the best opposing arguments already available instead of caricaturing the ideas of some mostly anonymous people. I don't know you, but I gather you aren't like some random agnostic on the street in an undeveloped country who just ran into the missionaries and has some reservations related to theodicy. You seem educated and have access to the Internet at least.

I'm flattered but I don't get what your problem is with the type of arguments I'm attacking here.... If anything, you should be saying to the people who believe these crappy arguments to read on them. Reminds me of objections (which I previously shared, btw) against the 'New Atheists' of not addressing the best theist arguments when, in reality, they are doing us all a favor by bothering to walk to the John and Jane Doe in the street and point to them the absurdity of their beliefs instead of writing to academics or attacking academic-level arguments (not that they could, btw - lol - but you get the drift).

On the other hand, it's not necessary to be some kind of theologian or divinity student in order to have faith. Most people don't think about intellectual minutiae on a daily basis. If what they do think works for them and their faith isn't upset by the contradictions you perceive, what is your point?

Brother, I kind of agree with you but this isn't an excuse to the level of ignorance going around here. If anything, Mormons should be the first ones to understand what they are talking about since they meet regularly to discuss how to be better and, supposedly, to 'seek after knowledge'. This stuff would be fulfilling if they dared to discuss it but they neither dare nor know it. Why not teach critical thinking and basic logic once in a while? It's clear they probably won't be engaging PhDs in Phil. of Religion but the level at which they're at indicates a much more systemic problem. I don't think I need to direct you to polls where it's shown atheists are more knowledgeable (on average) about religion than the average Christian.

I understand some people in despair may be frustrated when other people seem to be unperturbed and seek empathy by sowing disquiet. I don't think that's the case here.

You could tease some words out of someone and construe them as their glorifying a heartless bystander, but as I've said, belief in and worship of only one god, who is powerful, has moral advantages compared with alternatives. Monotheists aren't being taken by "their ideas" to where you think they are being taken to.

It's clear this isn't the issue here but you are quite charming so I would love to discuss this with you, if you want to open a thread on this or something.

Yes, the idea is out there that suffering is punishment for sin. I'd agree there is a problem with that. Some people who think that, that the sufferers just deserve it or brought it on themselves somehow, are truly callous. Those who don't see that suffering is mostly caused by others with agency, who have an obligation to do good, are idolaters worshiping a false god. That doesn't describe the true church of Jesus Christ.

(same)

Edited December 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[altersteve]

This thread is still going?

[elguanteloko]

1. The fact that God does not stop a specific number of unjust actions has no necessary relevance to the question of whether he should, always and under all conditions, based on no other criteria other than that he can stop such actions, stop such actions. The question here is really whether God's omnipotence can be used as a trump against his omniscience, and under what conditions. Just because God has the power to stop any and all unjust actions against others, does not necessarily imply that God's perfect knowledge and wisdom allows him the liberty of actually intervening in every and all instances of unjust actions given the entire background of the plan of salvation as regards mortal conditions relative to any particular individual.

It's certainly possible that God could have some hidden reasons to let evil as we see it happening but that's something one could always say and have no relevance (unless you can demonstrate it).

2. You're assumption that God does not, at any time, stop such actions appears to be an argument by assertion only. How do you know that God has not stopped countless unjust/immoral actions by individuals against other individuals, and even entire instances of organized warfare or criminal depredation, on numerous occasions? What would count as evidence that he has intervened in such situations?

I'm not assuming God never stops evil. I'm taking the Bible and BoM to be right at least in this respect for the sake of argument. I actually said already here that God does seem to stop people from getting harmed by evil people in the Bible and BoM (thus, making the excuse that it is against him to prevent evil silly).

The term "unnecessary" is a caveat introduced into the argument that comes packaged with its own set of philosophical problems. What is "unnecessary" from an severely limited, mortal perspective may appear to have an entirely different relevance from an eternal perspective in which all the consequences of an action are perceived as related to each complex and dynamic aspect of a person's entire life experience and individual psychology within an eternal frame of reference.

Upon what criteria do you determine what is "necessary" and "unnecessary' across the entire panoramic spectrum of an individual mortal probation within the context of a "plan of salvation" as understood within the restored gospel (which is what we must relate all arguments of the "If God could, then why doesn't he" form as traditional among secular humanists)?

That's actually you guys' problem, not mine (I don't even believe in God). I'm pointing out some problems with your view.

How do you reconcile the concept of free agency and the necessity of being able to will and cultivate our own morality structure (and be responsible for it), as understood in the Church, with a situation in which God intervened in literally every immoral/unjust action that affected an innocent victim or third party?

Stopping bullets, rapists, bombs, tyrants, etc doesn't interfere with free will and I've explained why. Why don't you address what I said and keep asking questions that ignore my explanations?

If we are not essentially free to do evil, how then could we be free to do good?

As I said before (why don't you read, darn it?!!), 'freedom to do evil' doesn't mean more than freedom to do immoral actions. There are a ton of immoral actions you can do and not all of those include getting to completion hurting others. That a cop stops me when I'm about to bomb a mall doesn't mean he took my freedom to do evil. "Attempted murder" is pretty darn bad. "Attempted rape" is also. "Attempted genocide", too. Etc. That you can't put a bullet through my leg doesn't mean you can't help me build my home.

You could say, however, "what about actions like cheating on your wife? It seems that the only possible way to not hurt your wife - assuming she finds out - would be for God not to let you cheat on her, thereby restricting your freewill." That actually would be a good objection. However, again, we are speaking of none else than God. God could make your wife able to not suffer at all with a super-cool pill if she decided to take it. I never spoke of having a suffering-free world, btw. People should be able to choose evil and suffering if they so desire (although, as I've tried to show here, the reasons people give for saying "that's what God did and that's why we chose to come here to earth" make no sense so that move doesn't seem to work).

Edited December 5, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

It would help if you would actually engage the points and arguments I've made, point by point, and show, if you can, why you think they aren't relevant points, or why they are philosophically weak, instead of brushing them aside with vague references to your original thesis, while the arguments I've put forth demonstrate a number of potential holes in that very thesis. If we are going to discuss why the gospel cannot be true (If God existed he would not behave as secular humanists think he should), then let's do that.

But you won't engage in actual philosophical discourse when your beliefs and arguments are challenged. Perhaps you should be forgotten.

Come on, brother, don't be so tough with me. I like you and I enjoy addressing you quite a bit. I would have liked to address your posts before but I have to work and go to school. I also never pretended here to show that something can't be true, I'm just trying to show why the reasons presented don't really work.

Edited December 5, 2011 by elguanteloko