As I have mentioned over the course of the past several weeks, this morning I begin a sermon series on apologetics. While considering a series of messages for Lent, several people asked me if I would speak on the topic of apologetics at some point this year, so I thought it would be a good topic for Lent. Apologetics is the spiritual discipline of explaining belief. While it can be a defense of belief, if one is given a challenge to defend their faith, apologetics is more than just a defense of belief. Apologetics is more of a systematic theology, that is, it is an organized – or systematic – explanation of what we believe as well as why we believe.
The age of apologetics began many centuries ago, I would say, with the early church father St. Augustine. St. Augustine is one of the greatest theologians in church history, and whether or not you are familiar with him, his influence extends to our present day and has greatly affected the way in which we think about God and faith. Augustine wrote the City of God, a monumental work that was, among other things, a huge tome of apologetics. Augustine wrote the City of God in response to charges leveled against the early church. In the year 410, the city of Rome was sacked by the Visigoths, which was one of the greatest jolts to ever hit the mighty Roman Empire. When a traumatic event takes place, people often search for a scapegoat, and many in Rome found their scapegoat in the early church. Many Romans took the view that the sacking of Rome was punishment meted out to Rome because they had forsaken their traditional gods for Christianity. In response to this charge, Augustine wrote the City of God. Augustine’s work became not only a great work of apologetics – arguably the greatest work of apologetics ever – but also a great work of theology. What the City of God helped to do was to provide a language for apologetics and, further, to organize beliefs and theology in a systematic manner.
In I Peter 3:15 we find a verse that encourages us to always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. If someone asked you, why do you believe in God, how would you answer? It doesn’t have to be a challenge to your faith; it might simply be someone asking about your personal journey of faith, and an interest in your personal beliefs. Each person should, I strongly believe, be prepared to answer such questions, and I hope this series will help you in formulating your answer.
As an introduction to this morning’s topic, I have a riddle for you – a poor man has it, a rich man needs it, and if you eat it for a long time, it’ll kill you. What is it? Nothing. (Why Does the World Exist: An Existential Detective Story, by Jim Holt, p 42). This morning we are talking about nothing, or more specifically, The Existence of God: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? For millennia, humans have gazed into the heavens and wondered about our origin. How did we get herehas been asked by countless people over the course of the ages. On a deeper level, we then ask not only how we got here, but why is there something rather than nothing? Why does anything exist at all? Well, for one reason, as soon as we contemplate nothingness, it is no longer nothing but, rather, something.
Our Scripture text comes from the first chapter of Genesis. Follow along with me as I read from Genesis 1:1-14, 18-21, 23-27, 31 –
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.
8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
As I worked on this message, I quickly realized the sheer size of the topic, which could easily become its own series. Trimming this message to a manageable size was a challenging task, so I hope I don’t treat it with such a shallow overview that it loses much of its impact. (The printed version of this message contains much more information than what I presented in our Sunday morning worship. Looking back, I feel as though I should have divided this message into two parts, as there was so much information I sought to cover. After the services, I felt as though I dumped a truckload of information on the congregation.)
What I will do with this topic is break it down into two segments, the first being what I will call the dismantling of the straw man arguments. Are you familiar with straw man arguments? A straw man argument is when someone appears to refute the argument of another person but what they are actually doing is refuting an argument that was not presented. In the case of discussions about God’s existence, a straw man argument will appear to refute the idea of God’s existence, but in reality, the straw man argument has nothing to do with the question of God’s existence. When discussing whether or not God exists, that is the primary and only question. What often happens is that the discussion veers off into other topics, none of which apply to the primary question of God’s existence. Most every objection or argument against God’s existence, I have found, is really about something other than the larger question of God’s existence. To illustrate my point, let’s look at some examples of straw man arguments.
1. Belief in God is declining.
Let’s talk about the facts – religious belief as a percentage of the world’s population is growing, while that of non-belief is declining as a percentage of world population. While there is no doubt that the role of institutional religion – and the number of people who believe in God – has changed in our country, for instance – it is important to note that this is a dynamic almost exclusively associated with Western Europe and North America. Around the world, religion and belief in God continues to grow, and in many parts of the world, particularly Asia and Africa, Christianity is growing at a rapid rate. Even in parts of the world where religious belief has historically been low or in parts of the world that have been officially atheist – such as China – religion, and Christianity in particular – has been growing at a rapid pace. It has been estimated, for instance, that in coming years China will have more Christians than any other nation on earth. In spite of very strong persecution in recent years – and attempts by the Chinese government to influence the church to be more supportive of the government – Christianity is growing very rapidly in that country (https://www.ft.com/content/a6d2a690-6545-11e4-91b1-00144feabdc).
While religion and belief in God is growing worldwide, the percentage of atheists – related to world population – is declining. This may come as a surprise to some people, as a result of the narrative – a false narrative – that religion and belief in God is declining. Another interesting truth is that atheists, as a group, have the lowest rate of retention when compared to religious groups. For those who have been raised in an atheistic home, only 30% remain atheists into adulthood. This is a rather astounding statistic. No religious group comes close to having such a low retention rate, and many of those who do leave a religious group do not actually leave religion or belief in God, but instead change from one religious group to another. Catholics, for instance, have a retention rate of 68%, but this does not mean 32% of people who are raised Catholic will abandon faith. Many, if not most, of that 32% will become Protestant or align with another faith group.
The reality, however, is this – whatever the reality of the growth or decline of religion and belief in God, it has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. God either exists or does not, and the truth of God’s existence has nothing whatsoever to do with what people believe, which means the question of religion’s growth or decline is a straw man argument.
2. Science has proven that God does not exist.
For most of human history, people have believed we exist because of divine action. God created the universe and that was the answer, pure and simple. As we entered into the modern scientific age, however, that began to change somewhat, especially in Western Europe, and to a somewhat lesser extent, North America. The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on science and reason, began to call into question long held assumptions about the origins of creation. When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, things shifted more dramatically, as the schism between faith and science that began in the Enlightenment deepened, making them, in the minds of many, diametrically opposed to one another.
I believe there is no inherent divide between faith and science, and those that do hold to such a belief perpetuate the idea of an insurmountable divide because of bad theology, faulty thinking, or to further a particular agenda. There are those on the side of unbelief, for instance, who claim faith and science are at odds because science is based in facts, evidence, logic, and reason, while faith is opposed to all of these. Faith, in fact, is not at all opposed to any of these. While it is true that faith does not depend upon proofs and evidence, it is certainly not opposed to them. There are those on the side of faith who, like their unbelieving counterparts, believe that faith is incompatible with science because they reject the findings of science as being incompatible with their interpretation of faith or because they fear the findings of science, as those findings contradict their views of faith and their interpretation of Scripture.
I am not a scientist, obviously. I passed biology my first semester in college by a single point. But that’s okay. I do not believe one has to be a scientist to speak to the relationship of faith and science. As a theologian, I feel not only comfortable, but compelled, to speak to this issue.
I believe there is an important point to make about faith and science and it is this – science is really about process, that is, the explaining of the way the universe and other physical and biological processes operate. Science tells us about gravity, the speed of light, atoms, neutrons, protons, and all the processes by which the universe functions. This provide us with the answers to what I would call the “small w” why questions. These are questions such as why do planets hold to their orbits, how is the universe expanding, etc. Faith, on the other hand, provides us with the answers to the “big W” Why questions. These are questions related to the why of existence and what purpose there is to our existence. Science can provide the mechanics and processes of how things have developed and how we got to where we are at this point in history, but not why we are here. Science provides us with important insights into processes, while faith provides important insights into the meaning and the why of existence and creation.
And, contrary to what some might know or admit, a good many of the world’s greatest scientists are doing much in the area of bridging faith and science. Francis Collins, for instance, who wrote the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, serves as the director of the National Institutes of Health. He previously led the National Human Genome Research Institute, guiding the work that sequenced the human genome. Collins’ work led to the identifying of the genes that cause cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and other diseases. Collins, early in his medical and scientific career, was an atheist. He began to investigate faith after one of his patients asked him a question that intrigued him to the point that he began to investigate faith, and ultimately led to his religious conversion. Collins is also one of the founders of the BioLogos Foundation (https://biologos.org), an organization that promotes greater understanding between faith and science. Collins is so highly regarded that the late Christopher Hitchens, who was one of the world’s most well-known atheists, once referred to him one of the greatest living Americans. I believe that the work Collins does as a scientist, and as a person of faith, is quite extraordinary. Collins reminds us that when it comes to faith and science, there are three options – 1. Abandon our faith in order to accept the results of science. 2. Deny the scientific evidence to maintain our interpretations of Scripture. 3. Reconsider our interpretations of Scripture in light of the evidence from God’s creation (from the biologos.org web site). Collins reminds us that the third option is where we should come down, in terms of our belief, as it has helped us to correct faulty theology, such as the belief that the earth was the center of the universe. Collins uses the example of Galileo’s and Copernicus’s discoveries, which caused a great deal of consternation and resistance from the Church, as they were hesitant and fearful about letting go of their incorrect beliefs. The Church did, however, eventually acknowledge that the discoveries of both Galileo and Copernicus were, in fact, true. Today, the Catholic Church supports the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, whose aim is to promote the progress of the mathematical, physical, and natural sciences and the study of related epistemological problems. It was also, most people probably do not know, a Catholic priest – Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître – who first proposed what has become known as the big bangas an explanation for the process of how the universe came into being.
3. The reality of suffering, the Inquisition, the support for slavery, televangelists and their private jets and mansions, etc. prove that God doesn’t exist.
If there is a quintessential straw man argument, this is it, because none of these have anything whatsoever to do with the existence of God. The reality of suffering, for instance, tells us something about the manner in which God works, but not whether or not God exists. As to the others I have listed above, they are reflective of and do have something to say about some of God’s followers, but they are subordinate to the ultimate question of God’s existence.
In regard to matters such as the Inquisition and the excesses of some televangelists, I would remind us that economists sometimes say of the stock market that the market is not the economy and the economy is not the market. Just as I am not a scientist, I am also not an economist, but I understand their distinction. The stock market is not always indicative of the larger economy and the two often act in ways that are independent of one another. The stock market might do well while the overall economy struggles, so the two do not automatically go together. I like to borrow the phrase about the stock market and economy and paraphrase it into theological language, saying that God is not the church and the church is not God. What I mean by that is, the church is not always representative of God or of God’s will. This is certainly true when it comes to the darker elements of church history. While the Inquisition was implemented and carried out by the Church, such terrible behaviors and abuses are reflective of the Church, but not God. The Church is to blame for the Inquisition, not God. I say this not to mitigate the responsibility and the error of the Church in any way, but to point out the truth that the Church – and religious people – have acted at times in ways that are not at all reflective of the nature or will of God and those actions cannot be laid at the feet of God in terms of responsibility. The same is true of other dark and tragic episodes in the life of the Church, or of churches, such as slavery. Yes, it is true that slavery is mentioned in the Bible – and not always condemned – but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God’s existence. Slavery, I would be quick to say, is always wrong and is an abhorrent practice, but its presence – both in the Bible and the history of the church – is a reflection of the nature of humanity rather than God. Churches, and those who claim to follow God, have often acted not only independent from God’s will but in opposition to it. This is a sad reality that remains with us, by the way. When churches tell women they are not equal or that they cannot be ordained, they are working in opposition to God’s will, not in accordance with it.
Lastly, I would also ask a question – when one blames God for anything, such as suffering, is that blame a tacit acknowledgement of God’s existence? After all, can blame be assigned to anything – or anyone – that does not exist?
4. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is one of my personal favorites, because it is so obviously flawed. Victor Stenger wrote a book titled God: The Failed Hypothesis, in which he raised this argument. My reply to Stenger would be to ask several questions. For one, who determines what is extraordinary? Why is it extraordinary to claim that God exists? The idea that God does not exist would actually be the extraordinary claim, in my opinion, as most people throughout history – as well as today – have believed and continue to believe in the existence of God. Furthermore, to claim that the universe and everything it encompasses is the result of totally random processes; well, that seems quite extraordinary to me. I would also ask, what constitutes evidence, and who gets to decide what is evidence? Is evidence only what can be measured in a lab? Can we, for instance, put a Monet painting, or a Beethoven sonata, under a microscope to search for evidence of what makes them such great works of beauty? I don’t think so. When I look around at creation, the handiwork of God in the creation seems like very strong evidence to me. The problem with demanding evidence is this – first, no one can agree on what constitutes evidence and, second, when evidence is produced, it does not guarantee belief. Jesus performed many miracles, but those miracles did not convince everyone. Stenger also wrote in his book, in several places, that absence of evidence means evidence of absence. I imagine that Stenger was very proud of that statement, butif God’s hand were to write across the sky, I exist, there would be no shortage of people who would still not believe. There is nothing God can do that would provide to some people the absolute proof they need of his existence. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead – arguably his greatest miracle – not everyone was convinced. In fact, it was in response to that miracle that Caiaphas spoke of what the other opponents of Jesus had come to realize – that they must kill him. John 11:50 records Caiaphas as saying you do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.
Arguments for God’s existence.
I need to preface this section of my message with the statement that there is no ironclad proof of God’s existence upon which everyone can agree, obviously. One person’s evidence may be another person’s wishful thinking. Not even the miracles of Jesus, as I have already mentioned, convinced every person of the truth of who he was. And not every argument is as effective as it might seem. C. S. Lewis, for instance, famously said there are only three ways to view Jesus – he was a liar, a lunatic, or exactly who he said he was. If Jesus was not the Son of God, then he was a liar, and someone who is not truthful in what they say is worthy neither of worship nor adoration. In the same way, if Jesus was not the Son of God, he was a lunatic. What do we think, after all, of people who make such claims of divinity? We think they are crazy. That leaves, then, the third option, that Jesus was exactly who he claimed to be. This argument, as proposed by Lewis, has been viewed for years as one of the great arguments in apologetics. Personally, I do not find it to be an effective or compelling argument when talking to skeptics. It’s not that I don’t agree with Lewis’ conclusion; I just don’t think it is very compelling to a lot of skeptics, and here’s why – they can simply say well, your evidence all comes from the Bible, and I simply do not accept the Bible. Well, there goes the argument, in terms of its effectiveness. And I suppose we can say that all the other arguments I will present have their own unique shortcomings, but I believe there are some that are very effective and have, over time, proven their effectiveness.
I would also add that it is important to be familiar with the various arguments for God’s existence because an argument that simply says because God created itis not going to work for many people. God gives us logic and reason, so we should use them. Engaging the modern, scientific mind requires a greater answer than God did it. It’s fine to make a saying such as God said it, I believe itas your personal faith statement, but if you want to present something to a skeptic that will engage their mind or that they will take seriously, a more effective and compelling argument should be presented. And, finally, I will add that because of time constraints, these are very, very cursory overviews of each argument.
Here are, in my opinion, some effective arguments –
1. Life has a built-in purpose and meaning.
It is hard to escape the sense of purpose inherent in life, and even many skeptics use language that reveals the difficulty of accepting there is not some built-in purpose and meaning to life. If, however, God does not exist, the best we can say is that life is bleak, purposeless, and without meaning. Those who deny the existence of God often must be hard pressed to admit this reality. Speaking once with a skeptic, I pressed them to admit that, without God’s existence, there is no possibility of meaning and purpose. After some discussion and prodding, the person finally did admit that the best they could do would be to invent their own sense of meaning and purpose. That is a valid effort, I agreed, but it was also not what we were speaking about. Of course it is true, I said, that every person can manufacture their own sense of meaning and purpose, but that is quite different from the question of an inherent sense of meaning and purpose that is built into the universe. Without God, what do we have? We would not, certainly, have an inherent meaning or purpose, and there is no debating that issue. One can come up with their own sense of purpose, but without God there is no inherent purpose, meaning, morality or anything else. There is only what we see. And personally, I find that to be very bleak and depressing.
I suppose that one could make the case for something akin to biological determinism, if there is no God. One could, possibly, say that our genetic code, defined and refined by the process of both biological and sociological evolution, has programmed into us a sense of meaning and purpose. Of that idea, however, I am a great skeptic. Biological – or even sociological – determinism is absolutely not the same concept as a meaning and purpose that is not only part of creation, but infuses all of creation because of God.
Sigmund Freud believed that humanity invented God, and did so out of the terror of the meaningless of life and inevitability of death that came without God. I disagree with Freud, obviously, on the question of God’s existence, but I think he is right about the terror related to the meaning of life – or absence of meaning – that comes with no God. Jeremiah 29:11, a famous and beloved verse, tells us for I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. People love that verse because it speaks to the meaning and purpose God provides in life. Where would we be without that hope? Without that future? Life would indeed be bleak.
2. The Anthropic Principle, or fine-tuning argument.
One of the most powerful arguments, I believe, for the existence of God is what is called the anthropic principle, or more commonly, the fine-tuning argument.
The fine-tuning argument states that the laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life. If the value of even one of the fundamental constants – the speed of light or the mass of an electron, for instance – had been to the slightest degree different, then human life could neither have formed or be able to continue once formed. For those in the field of science, this is a particularly persuasive argument.
Explaining this far better than I could, I will offer a quote from Francis Collins, who quotes from Stephen Hawking – The way in which the universe expanded after the Big Bang depended critically on how much total mass and energy the universe had, and also on the strength of the gravitational constant. The incredible degree of fine-tuning of these physical constants has been a subject of wonder for many experts. Hawking writes: “Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part of 100 thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.”
On the other hand, if the rate of expansion had been greater by even one part in a million, stars and planets could not have been able to form. Recent theories involving an incredibly rapid expansion (inflation) of the universe at very early times appear to offer a partial explanation for why the present expansion is so close to the critical value. However, many cosmologists would say that this simply pushes the question back to why the universe had just the right properties to undergo such an inflationary expansion. The existence of a universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability (A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief: The Language of God, Francis S. Collins, pp. 72-73).
After a somewhat lengthy, and technical discussion, Collins concludes with this statement – …no scientific observation can reach the level of absolute proof of the existence of God. But for those willing to consider a theistic perspective, the Anthropic Principle certainly provides an interesting argument in favor of a Creator (page 78).
3. Morality.
We will talk more about morality in a few weeks, but let me say one or two things today about this point. Just as there is a sense of meaning and purpose built into creation, so there is a sense of morality that is inherent as well. In fact, that sense of morality is a very powerful force in humanity. From a young age we have the inherent sense that we ought to be kind to one another and that we ought to treat people with fairness and dignity.
In Romans 1:20 Paul speaks to the idea that morality is built into who we are. He writes that since the beginning of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. When Paul talks about the qualities of God, such as his divine nature, as clearly seen, he is referring to the idea that a basic, universally understood sense of morality is built into all people. That being said, I would add that we must also remember that there is no universally agreed upon sense of morality. While most everyone would agree that we ought to treat one another with decency and fairness, what constitutes decency and fairness will find many different definitions. This is why, I believe, the process of comparing one another – I’m just as good as anyone else – is misplaced, as to compare our goodness to anyone else’s means we must first agree upon a standard for goodness by which we can compare ourselves, and this is not at all likely to happen.
A basic sense of morality is, I believe, inherent in every person. To be more specific about morality, however, means that we must define further what morality specifically means, and we will do this when we arrive at the message on morality, or, more specifically, Christian morality.
Of all the arguments for the existence of God, the final three that I will now present are the most convincing for me.
4. Near-death experiences.
My first exposure to the idea of near-death experiences came when I was in high school. I don’t remember which happen first, but two events stand out in my memory from that time in my life. I remember there being a copy of the book Life After Life, by Dr. Raymond Moody (published in 1975. Dr. Moody began his research in 1968 and says of his experience in conducting research on near-death experiences that when he began he was a skeptic and an atheist. Now he is neither.) I picked up the book and was fascinated by what I read. The other event was when my grandfather had a very serious heart attack. To my remembrance, he was not a religious man – at least not expressing it in any way that I ever noticed – but while he was in the hospital recovering from his heart attack he asked my older brother to baptize him as soon as he was able to get to the church. Whatever he experienced (and I am not aware that he ever shared his experience with anyone), it obviously brought about a major change in him.
I have spent many years visiting in hospitals, nursing homes, and places where death takes place. I have also visited with many people in their homes, in their final days. I have witnessed many inexplicable and unexplainable occurrences. I understand that some people will say that when death seems to have taken place the brain is still able to process information and that it has an awareness of its surroundings for some time before it fully shuts down. This, some would say, explains how people are aware of what happens around them as they experience what we would call clinical death (clinical death being a state of death from which one can be resuscitated). Fair enough. I am willing to concede some validity to that point. However, I have witnessed the kinds of experiences for which there is no explanation, the most convincing of which is when someone is resuscitated and returns with knowledge they did not have, and could not have known. An example of this would be when someone comes back to life with a message for a friend, an acquaintance, or a loved one, and their message contains detailed information they were never given, and could never have had, except for their experience of near death.
I could relate many such experiences, but for the sake of time I will simply say that I have encountered many people over the course of my ministry who have had near-death experiences. It is powerful to hear their stories, and I believe those people have been given a glimpse of what is to come.
5. Human consciousness.
Skeptics will say that, given enough time, very complex life forms can evolve from very simple organisms. I accept that premise, with one very significant difference: I believe God used the process of evolution in creation, but it was a process that was not an end in and of itself. While God used, I believe, the process of evolution, it was a process directed by God and instituted by God. To say that complex life forms – most especially, human life – could evolve from a series of random processes is leap of faith that I simply cannot make. That such a variety and complexity of life could arise from random processes seems, to me, to have about the same likelihood as putting 100 or 1,000 chimpanzees in a room with laptops and one of them eventually types out something like War and Peace. That one of those chimpanzees would produce such a literary masterpiece, to me, seems to be a more likely prospect than complex life arising from complete randomness.
Human consciousness, for me, is really a key element in belief that God created all things. To believe that human consciousness can arise from simple, inert matter, from some random chemical bonding, is a stretch to far for me.
6. Love.
Lastly, I would say that if life is nothing more than the result of random processes it is not possible to build an argument that love truly exists. If there is nothing but the material – those things that we can see, touch, and measure in a quantitative manner – then we could also say there is nothing that approximates the spiritual. The best we could say, I believe, is that chemical processes in the brain produce pleasurable feelings that provide us with the illusion – but not the reality – of love.
The brain, obviously, controls the functions of our body through biological processes. Even the most vociferous skeptic, however, would most likely say that the brain also processes experiences that can be explained only by what we would label as spiritual – the experience of standing on a beach and watching a beautiful sunset, the overwhelming sense of gratitude at the birth of a child, being moved by a powerful piece of music, and other such moments. But are such experiences truly spiritual, or merely the triggering of chemicals in the brain that cause us to believe something special is taking place? Obviously, I believe something special and something greater is at work, but I also believe that without the existence of God – which means that we are ultimately only the culmination of random physical and biological processes – we cannot make a cogent case that any kinds of spiritual experiences truly exist. And love – being the ultimate in spiritual experiences – is, ultimately, little more than the sensation caused by those processes. I understand that many skeptics would greatly disagree with me on this point, but I stand firmly by it, and would challenge them to convince me of how love could truly be more than simply a chemical process, if God does not exist.
Well, I have given you a lot of information this morning, with more yet to come. I hope you have found this information to be helpful, and that I did not overwhelm you with the sheer volume of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment