The illogical god of the Mormon cult

[Jeanne dArc]

SO - ho - ho ho, there wasn't a magical hat? no? there was no angel that came to talk to this guy?

to tell Him where the new Bible was? And to tell him he could have 12 wifes? ha ha ha . I Like the traditional God ,

the one God. with the old book!

that taught in parabells. easier to work with..........God of perfect love , God of intellegents.

So you believe in your god just because it's easier? Because you just like it better? Fair enough Can't tell you what to believe. Although I can tell you that the "traditional God" (which one?) is no more or less plausible than the Mormon God. From a perspective of reason and science, the two deities are equally unbelievable/believable.

[Alan McDougall]

Ah, I figured that you were quoting from something when you posted this on that other thread.

As Hawkin said, your logic is seriously flawed. What is your mechanism for making "nothing" become "everything"? You're also assuming there is such a thing as "nothing", though there is no actual evidence of that. You have no evidence for any part of your hypothesis (though I use the word "hypothesis" very lightly here).

As I said the last time you posted this: I don't think it's badly written, I like your use of adjectives. But it's still nonsense "Primordial writhing cosmic cloud of magnetic flux energy"? Meaningless technobabble.

Who is this Hawkin?, no such scientist exists as far as I know, look for the correct spelling so I can know which person you might be quoting

Techno-babble is often babble to those who have absolutely no understanding or concept of physics, especially modern physics.

Such as a quantum particle can also be a wave, as proved in the double split experiment, that fundamental particles can exist in more than one lace at one moment, or that particle separated by huge distance can and do interact with each other instantaneous, over huge distances, seemingly defying the light speed barrier. If the spin of one particle is changed its fellow particle maybe a billion light years away with alter its spin instantaneously. Physics sometimes is beyond human logic at least for now.

Your assumption that I am uneducated in the sciences is highly mistaken and wrong, indeed I am an active member of a few science forums, where my inputs are taken seriously. "The Naked Scientist Forum" is one, look up my contribution if you doubt me!

My effort to describe god, was to attempt to make this hypothetical entity into more of a scientist and primordial mathematician. I simply hate the Mormon idea of reducing god to a silly human who came into existence through the processes of evolution, which I believe is the best theory of how life evolved in my opinion.

If you knew anything about modern physics you would know physicists and fellow scientists now insist that something can indeed originate from nothingness!

Can Something Come from Nothing?

http://infidels.org/...tic/vacuum.html

To most people, the claim that something cannot come from nothing is a truism. However, most physicists disagree. Against the claim, they often cite what are variously known as quantum vacuum fluctuations orvirtual particles. These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations.

They produce measurable effects, such as the Lamb shift and the Casimir-Polder force. These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.

In short, if we follow most people in thinking of empty space as nothing, then we have at least one pervasive example of something that can come from nothing.

Can the Universe Come from Nothing?

Virtual particles are constrained to have short lives because they represent an increase in the energy of the universe; Heisenberg's uncertainty principle affords room for sufficiently short-lived virtual particles, but long-lived ones appearing in a universe such as ours would violate the first law of thermodynamics. One might think, then, that quantum vacuum fluctuations cannot have any relevance for the origin of the universe.

On the contrary, some physicists, going back at least to Tryon (1973) believe that the entire universe might be a massive quantum vacuum fluctuation. The key feature of the universe that would make this possible would be a total energy of zero. You might wonder how the universe could have a total energy of zero. The answer is that gravitational energy is negative—when summed with the positive energy of the matter in the universe, the two quantities may cancel out. Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, nor the first law of thermodynamics, place any limit on the length of time a quantum vacuum fluctuation of zero total energy could persist, so the longevity of our universe does not rule out a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin.

The proposal is not that the entire universe appeared in one shot, but that a quantum vacuum fluctuation served as the seed for a local expansion of spacetime, which would automatically generate matter as a side-effect.

In these kinds of proposals, the quantum vacuum fluctuations occur in empty spacetime. Other proposals, most notably that of Alex Vilenkin, do not involve a preexisting spacetime at all, and rely upon quantum tunneling rather than vacuum fluctuation.

What I was trying to do and apparently failed was make my idea of an intelligence behind creation fit closer to scientific thought, than the blind religious nonsense like the hoste of silly religious cults' (My comment by Alan McDougall)

Edited August 18, 2014 by Alan McDougall

[+Link of Hyrule]

Who is this Hawkin?,

Hawkin - http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showuser=103357

He posted just a bit up from you, though technically it was the Spock-meme who said whatever it was about flawed logic.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Alan McDougall]

Hawkin - http://www.unexplain...showuser=103357

He posted just a bit up from you, though technically it was the Spock-meme who said whatever it was about flawed logic.

Sorry! I thought you were referring to either Richard Dawkings famous atheist proponent/biologist or maybe famous British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and had misspelled their names, my apologizes!

Below are quotes from reputable scientists who theorize/suggest that something from nothing is not an impossibility, so it is also not impossible that the hypothetical god of my understanding also originated out of nothing.

The link is the same one I used in my previous post!

Please go back to my previous post #52 The font size came out too small to read

Supporting Quotes

[Q1] Paul Davies:

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162)

[Q2] Richard Morris:

The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris 1990: 24)

[Q3] Paul Davies:

Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies 1994: 32)

[Q4] John Barrow and Joseph Silk:

[Virtual particle pairs] are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute—only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters.

In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow & Silk 1993: 65-66)

[Q5] Richard Morris:

In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris 1990: 25)

[Q6] Heinz Pagels:

Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels 1982: 247)

[Q7] Stephen Hawking:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs.

But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together.

Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking 1988: 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]

[Q8] Paul Davies:

There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe.

The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies 1983: 31-32)

[Q9] Edward Tryon:

[T]he laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible. (Tryon 1973:397)

[Q10] Victor Stenger:

In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10^-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.

The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger 1996)

[Q11] William Kaufmann:

Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...

Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval ... short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?

Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann 1985: 529-532)

[Q12] Martin Bojowald:

Vilenkin's tunneling condition relies on another effect of quantum mechanics, again a consequence of properties of the wave function. A wave function can often penetrate barriers with its tails, even if those would be too high for a corresponding classical particle...Vilenkin proposed in 1983 that the universe itself might have emerged by such a tunneling process. Our universe would the tail of a pioneering wave function that had once penetrated the barrier of the big bang and its singularity. But from where did the universe tunnel, and from where came the bulk of the wave function, whose tail our universe is supposed to be, before the tunneling process? Vilenkin's answer, obvious only at first sight: From nothing ...

One can hardly attribute physical meaning to tunneling from nothing in a literal sense. Regardless, Vilenkin's postulate does have sense with regard to the wave function of the universe, endowed by the tunneling condition with certain initial values at vanishing volume. (Bojowald 2010: 222)

Edited August 18, 2014 by Alan McDougall

[Alan McDougall]

Also, Mr. McDougall, I noticed that you don't seem to quite grasp the concepts of time and space: as you described a "Timeless zone", but then proceeded to describe time within it ("previously", "came to be"), and it is clearly a space ("zone"), yet somehow "before existence came to be"? I think you must have a different definition of "existence" than I do, because I don't try to describe things existing "before existence came to be". And you claim that somehow logic brought you to all this? Funny kind of logic, considering the wildly paradoxical nature of your narrative here

In my opinion I think I know hugely more than you about physics, science in general and especially astronomy have had my own Newtonian German Mount Reflector Telescope, where I observed cepheid variable stars are standard candles , that astronomers used to estimate distances across the universe, using the red shift of galaxies. However you been so knowledgeable would know exactly what I am talking about?

Of course as an engineer/scientist I am also ignorant about energy, the fundamental laws of the conservation of matter and energy, the laws of thermodynamics, the strength of material, mathematics physics, entropy and the present entropic state of the universe, the heat death of the universe, or the great rip of the universe caused from runaway exponential expansion , dark energy, dark matter etc, c etc

[+Link of Hyrule]

Sorry! I thought you were referring to either Richard Dawkings famous atheist proponent/biologist or maybe famous British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and had misspelled their names, my

I wasn't referring to either, I'm just about observer who made a suggestion. But if you are so curious about spelling, it's Richard "Dawkins" not Dawkings. Just a thought.

[Beany]

I suppose that, and the end of the day, a person is entitled to believe what they want, however zany or incorrect it may be, like:-

• walking on water;
  
• converting water to wine;
  
• rising from the dead.
  

And a talking snake, a bush that speaks, transubstantiation, a virgin birth. Although I do think one could practice the Christian faith without necessarily believing in any of those things, and I suspect many people do.

[Beany]

Can we please get back to the OP? While the conversation about physics, etc. may be interesting to some, it's off topic. Maybe someone would like to start another thread about physics, etc.?

[Jeanne dArc]

Who is this Hawkin?, no such scientist exists as far as I know, look for the correct spelling so I can know which person you might be quoting

As Paranoid Android already said, Hawkin is a member here who posted earlier, I was affirming what he'd posted

Techno-babble is often babble to those who have absolutely no understanding or concept of physics, especially modern physics.

I use "technobabble" to mean: absolutely meaningless, simply using an overabundance of buzzwords and scientific jargon to give the illusion of credibility. Which is precisely what "primordial writhing cosmic cloud of magnetic flux energy" is: meaningless, and trying far too hard to sound "sciencey".

Such as a quantum particle can also be a wave, as proved in the double split experiment, that fundamental particles can exist in more than one lace at one moment, or that particle separated by huge distance can and do interact with each other instantaneous, over huge distances, seemingly defying the light speed barrier. If the spin of one particle is changed its fellow particle maybe a billion light years away with alter its spin instantaneously. Physics sometimes is beyond human logic at least for now.

This is the first mention of quantum mechanics in this conversation: yes, weird things happen in quantum physics, as I understand it, but that doesn't justify a belief in magical "prime causes".

Your assumption that I am uneducated in the sciences is highly mistaken and wrong, indeed I am an active member of a few science forums, where my inputs are taken seriously. "The Naked Scientist Forum" is one, look up my contribution if you doubt me!

I never assumed that you were uneducated in science, and I never said that you were uneducated: all I've ever done in correct your mistakes whenever I see them (which is fairly frequently, given we're talking about "God", haha)

My effort to describe god, was to attempt to make this hypothetical entity into more of a scientist and primordial mathematician. I simply hate the Mormon idea of reducing god to a silly human who came into existence through the processes of evolution, which I believe is the best theory of how life evolved in my opinion.

Why would it matter if a deity came about through evolution? How does its former mortality degrade its divinity?

If you knew anything about modern physics you would know physicists and fellow scientists now insist that something can indeed originate from nothingness!

Can Something Come from Nothing?

http://infidels.org/...tic/vacuum.html

To most people, the claim that something cannot come from nothing is a truism. However, most physicists disagree. Against the claim, they often cite what are variously known as quantum vacuum fluctuations orvirtual particles. These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations.

They produce measurable effects, such as the Lamb shift and the Casimir-Polder force. These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.

In short, if we follow most people in thinking of empty space as nothing, then we have at least one pervasive example of something that can come from nothing.

I've never asserted that I think that empty space is "nothing". And you do realize that Richard Morris, whom you just quoted, categorically asserts: "In modern physics, there is no such thing as 'nothing.'"

That is literally the opposite of what you just claimed, and yet you're trying to use him as a source?

You haven't refuted my earlier concept: that we have never collected any evidence that suggests true nothingness (read: an absence of existence).

name='Alan McDougall' timestamp='1408361406' post='5280911'] [/b]

Can the Universe Come from Nothing?

Virtual particles are constrained to have short lives because they represent an increase in the energy of the universe; Heisenberg's uncertainty principle affords room for sufficiently short-lived virtual particles, but long-lived ones appearing in a universe such as ours would violate the first law of thermodynamics. One might think, then, that quantum vacuum fluctuations cannot have any relevance for the origin of the universe.

On the contrary, some physicists, going back at least to Tryon (1973) believe that the entire universe might be a massive quantum vacuum fluctuation. The key feature of the universe that would make this possible would be a total energy of zero. You might wonder how the universe could have a total energy of zero. The answer is that gravitational energy is negative—when summed with the positive energy of the matter in the universe, the two quantities may cancel out. Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, nor the first law of thermodynamics, place any limit on the length of time a quantum vacuum fluctuation of zero total energy could persist, so the longevity of our universe does not rule out a quantum vacuum fluctuation origin.

The proposal is not that the entire universe appeared in one shot, but that a quantum vacuum fluctuation served as the seed for a local expansion of spacetime, which would automatically generate matter as a side-effect.

In these kinds of proposals, the quantum vacuum fluctuations occur in empty spacetime. Other proposals, most notably that of Alex Vilenkin, do not involve a preexisting spacetime at all, and rely upon quantum tunneling rather than vacuum fluctuation.

What I was trying to do and apparently failed was make my idea of an intelligence behind creation fit closer to scientific thought, than the blind religious nonsense like the hoste of silly religious cults' (My comment by Alan McDougall)

And yet your attempt to make your god "sciencey" has yielded nothing better than the blind faith of religion that you attempted to avoid Because you still have no scientific reason to leap to your notion of a "prime cause" (at least not that you've shared with us). And now you're referring to "intelligence behind creation", which you haven't mentioned before.

Yes, physics shows that the universe could "come from nothing", but again, it is not universally agreed that there was ever "nothing": some believe that our universe is one of an indefinite number of universes, or that we are part of a "brane", or that we are inside of a black hole in another universe. The possibilities are endless. So trying to use just one of those many possibilities as "evidence" of your hypothetical "god" is foolhardy at best.

[Jeanne dArc]

In my opinion I think I know hugely more than you about physics, science in general and especially astronomy have had my own Newtonian German Mount Reflector Telescope, where I observed cepheid variable stars are standard candles , that astronomers used to estimate distances across the universe, using the red shift of galaxies. However you been so knowledgeable would know exactly what I am talking about?

As a biologist, I admit that I have no particular expertise in physics, but I apparently know enough about it to correct your mistakes (which are usually glaring) I make no assumptions of how educated you are (and I don't appreciate your assumptions that you must be more educated that I am), but I have enough familiarity with modern physics to know where it disagrees with you.

And yes, I have some familiarity with the astronomical work you're talking about: although I don't usually go about lording my own scientific practices over those of different disciplines Particularly when they are utterly irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Of course as an engineer/scientist I am also ignorant about energy, the fundamental laws of the conservation of matter and energy, the laws of thermodynamics, the strength of material, mathematics physics, entropy and the present entropic state of the universe, the heat death of the universe, or the great rip of the universe caused from runaway exponential expansion , dark energy, dark matter etc, c etc

I just tell it like I see it I've never heard any engineer or physicist talk about "primordial writhing cosmic clouds of magnetic flux energy": it sounds more like the technobabble of a lazy sci-fi writer than an actual scientist. Not meaning to be nasty, but "magnetic flux energy" seems out of place in your narrative, considering it requires a material surface to conduct

Somebody can claim to be an engineer/scientist all they like, but forgive my incredulity if they begin talking about physics that even a non-engineer can tell are incorrect. It draws said scientist's credibility into question, unfortunately.

Can we please get back to the OP? While the conversation about physics, etc. may be interesting to some, it's off topic. Maybe someone would like to start another thread about physics, etc.?

Excellent suggestion, Beany

Clearly physics isn't getting us anywhere anyway, haha

[danielost]

This is a Mormon attack thread and according to the rules should be closed.

[danielost]

Your sub title is wrong also. God does not have blood.

[Jeanne dArc]

Your sub title is wrong also. God does not have blood.

The Book of Mormon states that god possesses a physical body: contrasted with spirit, which is "without flesh and blood". It is implied strongly that Elohim has blood, flesh, and bone.

[Opus Magnus]

I agree with daniellost that this thread should be closed down but want to say something first.

I had a copy of the Mormon Bible I had acquired and tried to read it. I read some of it and learned it was about plates that had been lost and found about the Bible before the new testament I think. I couldn't read it at the time because I found it repetitive. I noticed it didn't feel like the Bible because there wasn't this 'feel' to it that the Bible has. There are lots of authors in the old testament, but there is this feel to it in all of them that I didn't sense so much in the Mormon Bible.

I left it hoping I would get 10, 100 or 1000 times as much for leaving it for the gospel and Christ. I thought of the part in the gospel where Jesus says something like, "If they say Christ be in the desert or over there do not believe them," near where it is talked about the abomination of desolation. I guess if a Mormon cared they would pray to God that I receive the whole truth. Thank you.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Opus Magnus

[Alan McDougall]

This is my last post in this thread, all I was trying to do and flied is dismiss/refute the silly idea of Mormonism that God if he exist is a puny human.

If you to youtube and listen to some of the excellent debates between atheists like the lake Christopher Hitchens or Richards Dawking and credible theists, the debate is never ever about a little human alien god from a distant planet in the universe, but about the possibility of an almighty supreme being or intelligence creating the created the universe, instead of a scientific explanation.

Here is an excellent site to listen to some of these debates if you so desire. Find one where the God of Mormon is the center of the debate and I will rethink my position because unlike God I am most definitely not all'knowing as many of you have pointed out so tellingly!

I have been taking up the position of 'Devils Advocate" to those who might not have noticed?

http://www.atheismresource.com/youtube-videos

[Davros of Skaro]

This is a Mormon attack thread and according to the rules should be closed.

Is it true that you as a Mormon will get your own Planet?

[Saru]

Given the concerns over the thread's suitability and as things seemed to have been wound down anyway I'll go ahead and put this one to bed.

Closed.