Created from Nothing

A chief theological difference between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism is found in “Creation Ex Nihilo”. This is the belief that God is a non-created being who created the universe out of nothing (or out of himself). In my understanding, Mormonism holds that God may or may not be created and that he organized the universe with pre-existing materials.

The most obvious criticism of the Mormon viewpoint is that it leads to the logical fallacy of the endless regress. If God is created, who created God? And who created that creator? And who created that creator? etc. The answer to each question is just passing the buck on into the past.

We know that in the laws of nature (something Evangelicals would say was introduced in the creation) that something can not come from nothing. So Mormons need to answer “where did the pre-existing natural materials come from that God used to create?” And I would follow that question with “if they were created, why aren’t we worshiping their creator?”

The mainstream Christian view is probably most strongly supported by John 1. Aristotle and Plato’s asked the question: who is the logical necessity that is the uncaused cause or the unmoved mover? John answers “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” Later John makes it clear that the Word is Jesus. (Which raises more problems for Mormon theology about the nature of Jesus.)

The idea of creation ex-nihilo is supported by the evidence of the Big Bang. The Big Bang shows that the universe had a beginning. There was a one time a specific point where all things were born and put into motion. If it had a beginning that means in had to have a “beginner”.

I’m seriously short changing these concepts and ideas. (and there’s likely going to be some fledgling BYU philosophy student who wants to comment with their own 30 page retort). If you like to read more I’d recommend William Lane Craig’s excellent article in “The New Mormon Challenge” where he specifically places his cosmological argument in the context of Mormon studies.

Advertisements

46 thoughts on “Created from Nothing

  1. Maybe I’m crazy, but I see this as a non problem, or an invented one.

    Does it say somewhere in the Bible that there was nothing before God? Where did God come from then?

    I think that it is foolhardy to say with absolute certainty that there was nothing and God appeared? Existed alone? And created something. Out of what? How do you know? Since it’s before we can conceive, and an existence we can’t conceive of, how can we even speculate?

    I don’t think that the Mormon answer is troubling in the slightest. It may be incorrect, but not troubling. So there were other gods… so? Why would we worship them? My grandmother is my mother’s mother, but I don’t call her Mom. Even though she’s older and my mother was born of her. I am my mother’s daughter.

    Maybe I’m thinking too simplistically, but I just don’t see a problem. 🙂

  2. I think that it is foolhardy to say with absolute certainty that there was nothing and God appeared? Existed alone?

    We wouldn’t say there was nothing and THEN God appeared. We would say that God always was. Even the notion of time was something he created. We also wouldn’t say that he existed alone but he existed as 3 persons in relationship. But that’s for a different topic.

    So there were other gods… so? Why would we worship them?

    I guess people can be free to worship whoever they want, but I personally want to worship whoever or whatever had the power to make something come from nothing. Any subsequent generation afterwards seems to be inferior because they are all victims of cause and effect.

  3. Joseph Smith was once asked “when it all began.” In response, he held up a ring and said that just as the ring had no beginning and no end, so does existence have no beginning or end.

    The idea of a self-contained God just floating around and then one day deciding there ought to be a universe doesn’t make much sense to me. Why logically should the universe ever have “not existed?”

    We also say God always was.

    But I too, have “always been.” So have you.

    Besides, Mormonism holds that God has transcended linear time anyway. All things are continually before Him in an “eternal now.” Which makes a certain amount of sense, given that modern physics holds that time itself is not an absolute. Indeed, time is a localized condition that humanity happens to experience. There is no reason to demand that God experience it the same as we do.

    There is nothing really fundamentally illogical about infinite regress. I’ve always held that the traditional Christian cosmos is largely based on an artificial Greek logic game. That’s not to call it inferior to the Mormon view, by the way. I’m just saying that what traditional Christians hold to be iron-clad logic, is not necessarily true or even compelling.

  4. “I personally want to worship whoever or whatever had the power to make something come from nothing.”

    I can want to worship a God who can make a rock so big he can’t lift it too if I wish. That doesn’t mean my wants must be met.

  5. By the way, Mormon scholar Kathleen Flake posted something on how the Mormon God doesn’t have the same theodicy problem as the traditional Christian God here

  6. I guess people can be free to worship whoever they want, but I personally want to worship whoever or whatever had the power to make something come from nothing.

    I, on the other hand, would want to worship whoever or whatever created me. And if such a thing happened, I would want to worship whoever or whatever that suffered and died to save me from sin and death, whoever or whatever has the power to and is willing to transform me and make me new.

    Have fun worshipping a theo-philosophical abstract. In the meantime, I am going to worship my God.

  7. Kullervo #7,

    Well, it just so happens that they are one-in-the-same. I get my cake and get to eat it too.

    Seth #3,
    Yes, we say God is timeless as well.

    As far as an infinite regress not being logically impossible. I’ll try to make this argument as briefly and succinctly as possible

    If A = an actual infinite

    A – A = A is illogical. You can’t subtract an infinite from an infinite and still have an infinite. Such a thing does not exist.

    An infinite regress of temporal events represents an actual infinite.

  8. If it had a beginning that means in had to have a “beginner”.

    Non sequitur.

    Okay, let me rephrase. Events have causes.

  9. Sure they have causes. They also do in Mormonism.

    You’re hitting a fundamental bedrock here where logic just isn’t going to take us much further.

  10. Why shouldn’t the infinite be divisible into multiple infinite parts?

    Because every part would be equal to the whole. That’s illogical.

  11. katyjane and kullervo beat me to this, but I’ll throw in my two cents half cent:

    We (Tim and I) may have a fundamental difference in our reason for worshipping God. Tim’s seems to worship whomever is the most powerful; I worship whomever will save me. Tim’s worship could be called praise; my worship could be called trust.

    Tim, if I have misrepresented your view, please tell me. I do not intend to. I am likely—to quote you—“seriously short changing” your belief.

  12. Katyjane said “Maybe I’m crazy, but I see this as a non problem, or an invented one…I think that it is foolhardy to say with absolute certainty that there was nothing and God appeared…I don’t think that the Mormon answer is troubling in the slightest…Maybe I’m thinking too simplistically, but I just don’t see a problem.”

    Seth R. said “the idea of a self-contained God just floating around and then one day deciding there ought to be a universe doesn’t make much sense to me… Why logically should the universe ever have “not existed?”

    The problem with your views, and with not only the views of Mormonism but many other non-Christian religions as well, is that if what is taught is not logical to us as HUMANS, it is rejected, b/c it just “can’t” be true, otherwise we could understand it, right? Look at KatyJane’s quotes: “I” is her basis for not believing it, b/c “she” doesn’t see a problem and “she” doesn’t see how the Christian argument is logical. Seth R.’s objections are no different.

    But you forget, that God’s ways and thoughts are NOT our ways and thoughts, that just b/c we don’t find it “logical” doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

    You need to look at the evidence a little harder, and look to your own intelligence a little less, to truly find the God of the Bible.

  13. Now, Brad, you totally took what I said out of context.

    My point was that it doesn’t matter. It’s a non-problem, because who cares? Maybe God was the first, maybe not. Does it affect anything? To me, no. God is still God, whether He is someone’s kid, or whether He isn’t. It’s irrelevant to my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Redeemer.

  14. Actually, Brad, thinking about it, you unwittingly made my point exactly.

    God’s ways aren’t our ways. So why should you impose your logic and what you’ve interpreted from the Bible onto God?

    I don’t do that. I don’t feel a need to know or understand that–because it really doesn’t matter.

  15. “Because every part would be equal to the whole. That’s illogical.”

    Why? After all, there is plenty of infinity to go around.

    The problem is that you are viewing infinity as a quantity. I see it as more of an absolute quality. For example, lets say you have an “infinite number of stones.” I cannot grab a handful of sand and say I’m “that much closer to infinity.” Infinite is something you either have or you don’t. Period. There is no real quantity in question.

    So my statement of “dividing” infinity into multiple equal parts is probably misguided. It assumes that there are real distinct quantities in question. Which I have no basis for postulating, really.

    But your zero-sum-theory (more for me means less for God, etc.) of the universe falls prey to the same quantitative thinking. If infinity exists, it follows that it can be experienced by more than one being. There really is “plenty” of infinity for all who truly wish to be a part of it. In fact, I shouldn’t even use the word “plenty” because it also implies distinct quantities. The human mind is simply not equipped to comprehend this stuff. We can’t talk about God’s ultimate nature without slipping into time-based and quantity-based speech and thinking. But those tools are simply inadequate for these questions.

    In the end, I have to agree with Brad. These exercises are fun, but they are not Biblical (I don’t think John 1 is any sort of slam dunk), they are not ethical, and I don’t think they have much to do with true applied religion. True Religion is found in the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments, not in Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas or any other number of cosmological pioneers.

  16. We (Tim and I) may have a fundamental difference in our reason for worshipping God. Tim’s seems to worship whomever is the most powerful; I worship whomever will save me. Tim’s worship could be called praise; my worship could be called trust.

    Tim, if I have misrepresented your view, please tell me. I do not intend to. I am likely—to quote you—”seriously short changing” your belief.

    Brian thanks for your sensitivity in attempting to describe my beliefs.

    I would say that I worship whoever has the power to save me. If there is a more powerful god than Jesus, that means Jesus doesn’t really have any power to do anything to save me. He could be “overruled”. It just so happens that I believe Jesus to be the God with power and the God who saves.

    Brad #14, I actually think that line of thinking is a cop out for “that’s too hard for me to think through”. I certainly believe that there are many things about God that we won’t understand, but there is also a lot that we can understand. The illogic of an actual infinite is a difficult logical premise, but it IS logical and can be understood.

    Seth #17, If you going to redefine “infinite” with a different definition than I am using, then our discussion becomes meaningless. I am using the mathematical definition of “actual infinite” used in set theory. If you don’t think my premise holds up in that setting, feel free to explain. If I have to prove myself with the definitions you provide in the middle of a conversation, I’m not going to succeed.

    Katy #16, I agree that this doesn’t make a practical difference for a great many people. I certainly don’t think it’s the most unorthodox view the LDS church teaches. But it does go to whether or not our respective faith systems are intellectually sustainable. If LDS can claim that Mainstream Christianity is false because the Trinity is illogical, then I should have the opportunity to say that Mormonism is false because an infinite regress is illogical.

  17. You need to look at the evidence a little harder, and look to your own intelligence a little less, to truly find the God of the Bible.

    I’m sorry, but I can’t let that slide. It is total crap.

    The hard evidence is inconclusive at best, and at worst it weighs heavily toward ther not being a God at all. I’m not looking to debate that, though, since I actually believe in God.

    The real problem is that evidence alone doesn’t say anything withotu a person to interpret the evidence. We interpret evidence by intuition, reason, or logic. In any case, your assertion that human logic doesn’t ultimately decide whether there is a God or not (which I agree with wholeheartedly- logic is something people made up, and just because it seems to produce predictable results when applied does not mean that we have discovered the rules that are fundamental to the universe or that God is subject to) is inconsistant with yous insistence that we “look at the evidence a little bit harder.”

  18. logic is something people made up

    with all due respect, I think that’s total crap. Logic is something people discovered (and are perhaps still discovering). 2+2=4 is a true and real statement whether or not people know it, believe it or accept it. People don’t have to have any part in logic for it still to be true.

    But I think you probably agree, because you also say . . .does not mean that we have discovered the rules that are fundamental to the universe or that God is subject to

  19. Tim, #19: “It just so happens that I believe Jesus to be the God with power and the God who saves.”

    Well, great, then we completely agree!

    Seriously, though, I see your follow-up argument—Jesus could be overruled—and I was actually going to write something about it earlier but didn’t have the time. Yes, if Jesus could be overruled, then we could have a problem. But I simply don’t accept that “if.” Why? Because Jesus says that he can and will save me and I believe that (i.e. I trust him to know whether he can or not and to tell me the truth).

    On a related note, I think the notion of God being “overruled” is based on an unsupported assumption: that there is a god who is more powerful than our God. Even if Heavenly Father was created by some other being—and I’m not sure one way or the other—that doesn’t mean that he is “less than.” Mormons may take the “joint-heirs with Christ” profoundly further than Evangelicals, in this respect.

  20. Oh, and Tim, can you help me understand how the Big Bang provides evidence for creation ex nihilo? My understanding is that before Planck time the universe consisted of an extremely dense and hot mass—where did that mass come from?

  21. Actually, my understanding was that the Big Bang theory has come under scrutiny in scientific circles. I believe scientists are now saying the universe is showing evidence of actually contracting and they are postulating a universe that goes through cycles of expansion and contraction.

    Infinity is not a “quantity,” even in mathematics. It is another animal altogether and something of an anomaly – as is the concept of zero. So I actually do feel like I am using the known definition of “infinity” here.

    As far as 2 + 2 = 4…

    Why?

    Can you answer? Because I sure can’t. Kullervo is right to point out that logic is a distinctly human device. But you are also right to point out that if we are going to question logic itself here, we probably have no basis for discussion.

    But then, that’s also exactly what I am suggesting – that we have no definitive basis for discussion of these matters. The Bible is silent here. God has not seen fit for His religion to be bounded by these constructs. You can no more unmask God with logic than you can with, say… gene research.

  22. Postulating the idea of multiple Gods in the cosmos:

    I would suggest that our God simply cannot be overruled by another “God” somewhere else in the cosmos, because overruling another God is not something that “God,” by definition does. Once you are God and a partaker of the infinite, there is a universal law that you – by definition – adhere to.

    Yes, that is very circular. But these discussions tend to be.

  23. Oh, and Tim, can you help me understand how the Big Bang provides evidence for creation ex nihilo?

    Because it points to the universe having a beginning or a first cause.

    My understanding is that before Planck time the universe consisted of an extremely dense and hot mass—where did that mass come from?

    This question should be more troubling for you than me. I would say that it was created out of nothing by God. Where would you say it came from given that natural “somethings” don’t come from natural “nothings”?

    _______________________________________________
    As far as 2 + 2 = 4…

    Why?

    Can you answer? Because I sure can’t. Kullervo is right to point out that logic is a distinctly human device.

    If you can’t tell how 2+2=4 is true whether or not any living or dead person believes it to be true; I want to meet your college philosophy professor and learn his voodoo.

    As far as logic being a human device. Yes, It’s a device we use to describe how things are. Those things (such as 2+2=4) still go on whether or not we describe them.

  24. Tim, #26: paraphrasing wildly: “…the Big Bang provides evidence for creation ex nihilo…Because it points to the universe having a beginning or a first cause…. before Planck time the universe consisted of an extremely dense and hot mass…that it was created out of nothing by God.”

    Fine, you’ve stated what creation ex nihilo is, but not how the Big Bang supports it. “God created the pre-Bang mass” is just as much “ex nihilo” as saying “God created the planets exactly as they were 6,000 years ago” or “God created a pile of sushi that 100 bazillion years later developed into planets and galaxies.” Nothing in Big Bang theory says that God created the pre-Bang mass.

    You’re probably aware that at least some Mormons see Big Bang theory as supportive of LDS doctrine: Abraham 3:24: “We will go down…and we will take of these materials [i.e. pre-Bang mass], and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell.”

  25. Tim, as for “Where would you say [the pre-Bang mass] came from given that natural “somethings” don’t come from natural “nothings”?”

    I would say that I don’t know. I hope you’re not implying that my answering should be troubling to me….

  26. with all due respect, I think that’s total crap.

    It’s good that we respect each other, then, because we’re going to have to just disagree on that. To assert that the rules of logic (which were formulated by humans) are universal truths is not only unbelievably arrogant, but it is deeply rooted in modernism, which I am not convinced is the apex of truth and human understanding. They haven’t always been taken as givens, and there’s no particular reason to assume that they always will be givens, other than that for practical purposes, they produce reliable results.

    To impose these rules on the Supreme Being, though- or more precisely to assume that the Supreme Being is subject to any rules we’ve formulated, is in my opinion an unsound proposition.

    If the God of the Bible is indeed the Supreme Being, than about all that we can say about him propositionally that has come directly from him is that HE IS. Everything else we know about Him we know by implication, by assumption, or we are forced to phrase in terms that are difficult to pin down in any way that isn’t self-referential and thus doesn’t really tell us as much about Him as we imagine it does (like “God is good”), or at best, it tells us how He acts (“God is forgiving”).

    That’s a side issue though, and not super well thought-through so it may be hotly debatable; I don’t really care. My point is that rules of logic were not discovered, they were invented. They have to some extend withstood the test of time because they have led to predictable results and results that make sense to us in a fairly consistent way for a long time. I’m not saying they aren’t dependable. I’m just saying they are the product of the human mind and it is arrogant to assume that we can subject God to them and expect Him to always play along.

  27. Is it necessary, trying to be what God has not asked us to be? I am from Brazil and I know Gordon B. Hinckley is our Prophet today. This is my final testemony. In the name of Jesus Crhist. Amen.

  28. Man, does my brain hurt. I’m going to attempt to make sense of all of this tomorrow. As of right now, all I can say is:

    “Jesus loves me. This I know. For the Bible tells me so” 🙂 I’m with Katyjane on this one.

  29. Kullervo said:
    To impose these rules on the Supreme Being, though- or more precisely to assume that the Supreme Being is subject to any rules we’ve formulated, is in my opinion an unsound proposition.

    I’m sure we aren’t going to convince one another on this one. But my view is that we are not imposing the rules of logic on God and confining him. But rather that He is the standard upon which the rules of logic are based. He is in his very essence logical. To say he is logical is no more confining him to rules than to say God is good. You might as well say “by saying God is good you are confining his actions to only things you find to be good, what’s to say he can’t do something bad.” God defines the word “good” just as he defines “logical”. The more we understand what is objectively good and objectively logical, the more we gain insight into the character of God.

  30. Brian said:
    Fine, you’ve stated what creation ex nihilo is, but not how the Big Bang supports it. “God created the pre-Bang mass” is just as much “ex nihilo” as saying “God created the planets exactly as they were 6,000 years ago” or “God created a pile of sushi that 100 bazillion years later developed into planets and galaxies.” Nothing in Big Bang theory says that God created the pre-Bang mass.

    you should check into the link I provided. The argument in a nut shell is that the Big Bang, shows that the universe had a beginning. If it had a beginning it had to be created. I just jumped over all of the prepositional work that’s offered in the article.

    Seth said:
    Try it. Why is 2 + 2 = 4?

    Seth I’m not going to play that game. Particularly with a lawyer. 🙂

    My short answer is: somethings are self-evident.

  31. God defines the word … “logical”.

    Again, I could not agree less. There’s nothing Biblical that supports that. It’s pure modernism. Think that way if you want to, but I believe you are inventing a false picture of God.

  32. I read the part of the article that specifically mentioned the Big Bang (sorry, don’t have time for the whole thing), but I’m not convinced.

    “The argument in a nut shell is that the Big Bang, shows that the universe had a beginning. If it had a beginning it had to be created.”

    That’s not the argument, that’s the conclusion. The argument is something more like this (which I quote):

    “This event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of “infinite density” is synonymous to “nothing.” There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing.”

    Infinite density is synonymous to nothing? Huh? That’s some pretty tricky mumbo-jumbo, and seems strained in the direction of finding a preconceived answer. Besides, I’ve never read that the mass was “infinite,” only that it was immense (one NASA-sponsored site says, “a few millimeters across,” but since space didn’t exist before the bang, size seems immeasurable).

    All of this, of course, ignores that Big Bang theory insists that nothing can be known about the thingamabob that existed before the bang. So my conclusion, in a nut shell, is that Big Bang theory insists that Big Bang theory cannot support or refute creatio ex nihilo.

  33. Do you see the incongruence of these two statements:

    “We know that in the laws of nature (something Evangelicals would say was introduced in the creation) that something can not come from nothing. So Mormons need to answer “where did the pre-existing natural materials come from that God used to create?”

    and

    “Where would you say it came from given that natural “somethings” don’t come from natural “nothings”?”

    If the “laws of nature,” that insist that ‘somethings’ come from other ‘somethings’, were created after the creation, then there is absolutely nothing we can say, using the “laws of nature,” to describe material that existed before those laws. If Mormons or Evangelicals are looking for a slam dunk on this issue, it’s a slam dunk in an utterly silent, completely dark arena (i.e. it is unwitnessable).

  34. One last comment, since I think this discussion has been so fun:

    I’m not so sure that the real difference between our beliefs is in how the earth/universe was made, but rather is on the point of intelligences (which Seth mentions, above). Namely, that we, in some form, and God, in some form, have always existed.

  35. Do you see the incongruence of these two statements:

    This is why we call God SUPERnatural. He is outside of nature and is not bound to it’s rules. It poses a philosophical challenge to say that God is made up of the same material as the natural world. Or in other words, it’s hard to say “God created the material he is made up of.”

    If the “laws of nature,” that insist that ’somethings’ come from other ’somethings’, were created after the creation, then there is absolutely nothing we can say, using the “laws of nature,” to describe material that existed before those laws.

    That just basically showing how scientific naturalism is incomplete to answer these questions.

  36. “That just basically showing how scientific naturalism is incomplete to answer these questions.”

    Good, then we’re on the same page.

    “It poses a philosophical challenge to say that God is made up of the same material as the natural world. Or in other words, it’s hard to say “God created the material he is made up of.””

    First, who says that “God is made up of the same material as the natural world”? Certainly not LDS doctrine. Second, who says “God created the material he is made up of”? Again, not LDS doctrine.

    Third, maybe we need to step back and look at each other’s arguments here. Here’s how I see the problem:

    A) LDS belief is that we and God have always existed, though in what form isn’t at all clear; Evangelicals would say that God has always existed, but not us, as we were made by God.

    B) Evangelicals believe that before the natural creation, there was only God, and that he created all that is (except for himself, of course, since he always was); Mormons would say that before the natural creation there was God, us, and something, even though we have no idea what that something was, or its relation to what we now call nature.

    C) Evangelicals believe that God is obviously Supreme because he created everything; Mormons believe that God is obviously Supreme because he subdued everything.

    D) Mormons enjoy cookies with milk; Evangelicals—hey, Evangelicals also enjoy cookies with milk. So if you are ever in Western NY, please stop by for some cookies with milk.

  37. “Mormons believe that God is obviously Supreme because he subdued everything.”

    Maybe… But I’m not sure “subdued” is the right word.

  38. #40 (c). As a matter of understanding the positions of others, I would say that Mormons believe that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth. I wouldn’t omit the fact that for Mormons, God is the Creator. The caveat is simply that it is not creatio ex nihilo. Obviously, people will disagree on whether this is true, but I simply want to point out that to say God is not the Creator in Mormonism assumes that all creation must necessarily be creatio ex nihilo. That assumption itself is what is in dispute. But just because that is the dispute doesn’t mean that God cannot be the Creator in Mormonism.

    Furthermore, not as an argument that the LDS view is correct, but simply as an argument that it is not unreasonable to believe creatio ex materia, and that reasonable Christians can come to this conclusion, Justin Martyr 2nd Century Christian apologist wrote in his ‘First Apology’ (Chapter LIX.—Plato’s obligation to Moses):

    And that you may learn that it was from our teachers—we mean the account given through the prophets— that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so.” So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.

    For Justin Martyr, God still created the heaven and the earth, even though he believed God altered shapeless matter to form the world, and he held this to be consistent with the Genesis account. Again, I’m not arguing that this means the LDS view is correct (or that Justin is right), only that it shows an example of a Christian who reasonably held these views and was still considered a Christian and a defender of the faith.

  39. Seth, I’m not wed to the word “subdued,” just the general gist of the statement (I can see how “subdued” has some war/conquer tones that might not be accurate).

    Aquinas, that’s interesting. Thanks!

  40. #29 brianj “I would say that I don’t know.

    The only honest answer anyone in this discussion has given and the only applicable answer to every single question posed here with the exception of “does 2+2=4?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s