Responding to a Christian’s Arguments for God

Hello everyone! In the comments on one of my previous posts, commenter sabepashubbo (I’ll call him Sabe) offered to give me his case for god, and I accepted by saying that I would blog about it. He dutifully emailed me his case for his god, and I haven’t found the time to respond (sincere apologies Sabe!). Now I’m on a 2+ hour flight, so it seems like a good time. And this way I think it will be better because I don’t have access to wifi up here in the air, so all of the responses will be mine alone whereas normally I may have used other peoples’ material in the formulation of my answers. I’m going to put Sabe’s entire email here so that you can read it in full if you wish, and my reactions will be in red.

Thanks for taking the time to hear me out. I feel like I ought to break this up into several parts, because each one can be dissected. However, as a whole, I feel like it makes the case for the existence of God not only compelling, but the most plausible perspective to have. Although I’m sure you’ve heard most of this before, I would love to see what questions you have and answer them to the best of my knowledge.

I would like to start with the Kalam cosmological argument. No doubt you’ve heard this one several times. I have indeed, and it has never been even remotely convincing to me. This deductive argument is as follows:

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Well, there has to have been something, somewhere along the way that didn’t have a cause, that was just always here, right? So there is at least one thing that didn’t have a cause, whether that be God or the universe or the multiverse or whatever.
  2. The universe began to exist. Sure.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Yup I suppose so.

Why did the universe begin to exist? Damned if I know! This is a logical conclusion based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which at its lay conclusion indicates that the universe is moving gradually to a state of non-existence. So if the universe has a definite end, it must naturally have a beginning, for nothing in the natural world has been shown to have an end without a beginning. Well I think we already pretty much know that our universe had a beginning and will come to an end, I don’t get what this has to do with godso far.

So what was responsible for this beginning? Don’t know…we can’t observe outside of our universe, so it’s kind of impossible to do anything other than theorize about what we think might have set the Big Bang in motion, isn’t it? Well, for starters we must look at what our universe is doing now. Thanks to Hubble, we know now that the universe is expanding. So if we use infinite regress and look backwards at our universe, it would collapse in on intself. So our universe must have some “ex nihilo,” or “out of nothing.” I’m no physicist or anything remotely resembling a physicist, but I believe they most commonly say that our universe was in one state, and then the Big Bang changed it into a different state. So it’s not that there was nothing and then something just popped into existence, rather there was something, and that turned into something else.

The question then becomes this, “Is this possible naturally?” The earliest cosmic event we know of is the Big Bang. Of course it was, because time began at the Big Bang. On a recent episode of the Atheist Experience they were talking about this, it was pretty entertaining – how since time began with the Big Bang it’s meaningless to talk about “before” the Big Bang…you should check it out. Sabe maybe you should call that show and try to make your case for God on the air! According to Wikipedia, “Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an inition condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.” The Big Bang is not determined to be the beginning of everything, so that’s not the answer. But we do have it on pretty good evidence that the Big Bang did, in fact, happen. So what caused the Big Bang? We don’t know…yet! Although I have a more-than-sneaking suspicion that “I don’t know” isn’t acceptable to you – you need to fill in that gap with your god.

The best current scientific hypothesis is that “virtual” particles pop into and out of existence based on quantum fluctuations, and that this is what happened to create the Big Bang. However, there are several major flaws with this concept:

  1. If these are “virtual” particles, how can we determine their mass?
  1. How can virtual particles pop into and out of existence? Can’t this be explained justas easily as transfer of energy? How does nothing become something and then nothing agin, and why hasn’t this happened to our universe? And what does this say about mass that is no longer transferrable (e.g. black holes)?
  2. These current quantum fluctuations discussed are extremely minute exchanges. Like, inside of a proton minute. These fluctuations have not been determined to exist in larger such entities. The Big Bang at its very essence is the opposite of minute, so to say that these types of quantum fluctuations cause the biggest explosion in the history of the universe is a HUGE leap to make; a leap of faith exponentially larger than belief in any God, I would submit.

Honestly I don’t understand any of this. I’m not going to pretend to have any kind of notion of what quantum physics implies or what virtual particles are…my brain just won’t have any of it. It doesn’t penetrate my skull. But I’m going to stick up for the theoretical physicists and say that their hypotheses don’t require the faith that a god does, because they test their ideas using mathematics and by trying to see if they can make predictions based on their hypotheses.

So there are clearly issues with the current scientific view, though even leading scientists (e.g. Lawrence Krauss) still claim to have no answer to the question about how the universe began.

Yup Lawrence Krauss claims to have no answer to how the universe began – this is honest. Krauss doesn’t need an explanation. He’s fine with saying “I don’t know, lets wait and see.” As am I.

Now, theism (and specifically Christian theism) has put forth a view that the universe came from nothing, which is consistent with current science. Seriously? Theism is consistent with science? Give me a break. Science actually makes an effort to provide good, solid explanations for things and the Bible has a story that a child could writeabout how God did magic and voila! Universe! It’s not even on the same level. This view has been around for a minimum of 4,000 years, written in the Bible. It doesn’t matter how long it’s been around, it’s just a story in a book. There are religions older than 4,000 years, why is the Bible story more convincing or trustworthy? And this answer has gone unchanged throughout the course of human history. Whether the Bible is factual or not is not at play here; only that this theory was written down in it is relevant.

So if there is a viewpoint that lines up with the best current science we have, and has been around for 4,000 years, doesn’t that make it the most plausible worldview? No! It doesn’t line up with science, aside from the part about there being no universe one day, and a universe the next. Weak. The phrase I use often is this: An answer with some science is better than no answer with some science. I am not saying that you can never be an atheist; just that if you are using reason to place your bets with the most plausible worldview, you must be a theist until science is able to come up with conclusive evidence for a better answer. I submit that it will not happen. But based on the information we have today, theism is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

I completely fail to see where you provided any argument that theism is the most plausible worldview. Why should I be a theist just because science doesn’t yet have all of the answers? I don’t see any value in supplementing gaps in knowledge with fairy tales.

Using things like the Kalam cosmological argument is just playing games with words. If you really want to show that your god is real, you’re going to have to gather up some real evidence. You believe that the Bible lines up with science, but I think you need to thing more critically about what the Bible actually says compared to the Big Bang theory. Why do you find the Bible to be such a reliable source of information? Why aren’t other holy books just as reliable in your eyes?

It would also be useful to know exactly what this god that you’re arguing for is. You need to come up with a definition for your god, because there are so many different ideas about what the Christian god is. What characteristics does this god have? How do you know this god has these characteristics? Are any of these characteristics testable? If so, have the tests been done?

I think that a good place to start would be why you started believing in the first place. I seriously doubt that Kalam made you realize that the Christian god is real, so what was it that convinced you that there is a god? Maybe that would convince me too?

I’m disappointed that all you really did in presenting your case for god was point out places where we don’t have all of the answers, and fill in those holes with your god. You didn’t provide good reasons why your god is a good fit for these unknowns in science, I wasn’t even able to get a sense of what kind of thing your god is. It seems like you’re arguing for a deist god with Kalam, but yet you’re a Christian. There’s a disconnect there.

Advertisements

12 Responses to “Responding to a Christian’s Arguments for God”


  1. 1 Mrs. Chili October 7, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    Ugh. I just got finished reading an article by someone who is all bent out of shape (yes, pun intended) about how Christians cannot practice yoga AND call themselves Christians. His argument is that the practice of yoga runs directly contrary to the practice of biblical Christianity, and therefore Christians – true Christians – can’t practice yoga and still be Cristian.

    I should never click those links…

    There are so many things about the practice of organized religion that lead me to despair, and this sort of thing is one of them. The idea that there is ONE way to interact with the Universal (or, in the case against atheists, that there has to be a capital U-Universal, or G-God, at all) limits everyone, both the people who are being told that they’re wrong or broken (and are therefore going to Hell) AND the people doing the condemning.

    I’m perfectly happy with the answer of “I don’t know.” I also like to think that, if there IS a capital G-God, She’d rather that I made room for other opinions and views and lived with uncertainty than limited another’s free will and expression by forcing my views on them through manipulation, fear, or outright force.

  2. 2 kevinbbg October 8, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    I’m amazed he had so weak an argument. He could have said it much simpler, too: Science doesn’t have the final answer therefore this 4,000 year old fairy tale must be true because it’s 4,000 year old!!

    He should be embarrassed to present this to anyone.

    My favorite theory right now is the ‘Brane theory. That there is an infinite number of universes all surrounded by membranes, kind of like bubbles in beer. Our big bang was when two if these branes made contact at a specific point, exploding to create yet a third brane, or universe, our universe.

    There is also the idea that within the multiverse idea that black holes could be the cause of big bangs. That every black hole we know of has a universe on the other side of it.

  3. 3 The Pick Man October 8, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    I like the tone of your reply to Sabe. It is respectful and meets his points one by one. I also enjoy the honest humility with which you write: “Honestly I don’t understand any of this. I’m not going to pretend to have any kind of notion of what quantum physics implies or what virtual particles are…my brain just won’t have any of it.” Never-the-less your response, off the top of your head so to speak, is impressive.

    Both of you refer to theism, even more specifically Christian theism. In reading the exchange I see nothing of theism, only deism. I think it is wise to clarify the terms you are using. Where belief is concerned there is an important distinction between deism and theism. Dawkins, in ‘The God Delusion’, explains it thus:

    “A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think about doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist god never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no interest in human affairs.”

    Your discussion of the big bang, and who or what caused it, is deistic. Christian theism is very, very different. It is about the being perceived as the maker and sustainer of the universe assuming human form and, in that form, appeasing himself (maker and sustainer) for the sins of a third party. All of which is, in my opinion, far more difficult to believe than the possibility of a deistic god. But, even there, I’m with Krauss and you on that one; I don’t know how the universe began, lets wait and see.

  4. 4 Colin Gunn November 6, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    I’m a bit late to this discussion, but I did want to add my 2 cents.

    I would suggest that the best proof that there is a God is the fact that you can ask such a question in the first place. In order to ask that question, you need to be capable of thought, and thought requires consciousness. And not just ordinary consciousness, it requires the conscious ability to contemplate things of a spiritual nature. In essence, what I am talking about is life. Does science have a formula for life? Can it explain life – the act of “living”? What causes it, and what are it’s elements?

    If we put you and a refrigerator into a sealed room and took you both apart atom by atom, we would end up with two ‘identical’ piles of atomic dust! In theory, scientists could get any bunch of atoms and assemble them into the shape of the refrigerator, and it would likely work. If they tried the same with you, they would end up with a lifeless body.

    In Genesis 2:7, God formed Adam out of the “dust” and then did something that science can’t explain or replicate; He blew “into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.”

    Why is life so abundant and adaptable (think extremeophiles) here on Earth, but nowhere else in the universe?

    Scientists and Atheists have a distinct advantage when it comes to arguments about the existence of God; they can formulate or chose any theory they like (multiverses for example). Christians must stick reasoning from the bible.

    Regards,
    Colin

  5. 5 Colin Gunn November 7, 2010 at 12:22 am

    I’d just like to add that, for the first 37, or so, years of my life I was a die-hard skeptic. I refused to believe anything that could not be demonstrated,or proved by logic. As part of my psych degree, I studied Anthropology and firmly believed in evolution. Then, going on to work with abused children, I quickly developed a strong contempt for the religious explanations as to why God permits children to suffer. “God works in mysterious ways”, “It’s part of God’s plan for them”, “He wanted to make them better/stronger”.

    So, if it was part of God’s plan for these children to be abused, why do we punish the perpetrator? Is’t he/she just doing God’s will? Perhaps that’s why so many children are abused by members of clergy!

    Thankfully I have come to realize that not all who profess to be Christians actually are Christians. Even those who don’t commit evil, but perpetuate the illogical explanations of the causes of pain and suffering – although they have good intentions, are usually not fully acquainted with what the bible really teaches. Unfortunately,these kinds of Christians appear to be in the majority.

    1 Corinthians 2:15 states “the spiritual man examines indeed all things.” And in Acts 17:11 we learn that those who were “carefully examining the scriptures daily” were considered “nobel-minded”. So, even though Christians are to have faith, it should not be blind faith!

    Although the bible is not a scientific text book, it is scientifically sound when not subject to the fantasies of blind faith.

  6. 6 The Pick Man November 7, 2010 at 4:32 am

    “So, even though Christians are to have faith, it should not be blind faith!”

    Faith.

    Faith is, by definition, blind. Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing that is not based on proof. [Wikipedia] Even using your own authority, the Bible: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” – Hebrews 11:1 [King James Version] and spelled out more clearly in a later version, “Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see” [New Living Translation (©2007)] The idea was put poetically in Buddy DeSylva’s song:

    Wishing will make it so.
    Just keep on wishing and care will go.
    Dreamers tell us dreams come true.
    It’s no mistake;
    Wishing are the dreams we dream when we’re awake.
    The curtain of night will pass
    If you are certain within your heart.
    So, if you wish long enough, wish strong enough,
    You will come to know
    Wishing will make it so.

    You ask a big question, “Does science have a formula for life? Can it explain life – the act of “living”? What causes it, and what are its elements?” You suggest that, “the best proof that there is a God is the fact that you can ask such a question”. Your refrigerator/body illustration indicates that asking the question did not provide an answer for you. Consequently your ‘proof’ is the god of the gaps, i.e. I don’t know the answer so, obviously, God did it.

    Scientists and Atheists.

    Not all scientists are atheists. Atheists are by no means all scientists.

    A scientist is one who uses the scientific method, i.e. gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subjecting it to the process reasoning. That process enables the formulation and testing of hypotheses. They can certainly not, “formulate or chose any theory they like”. The crucial word is ‘testing’. Any published hypothesis is subject to review by a scientist’s peers, something that often helps further understanding.

    An atheist is defined by the absence of something. It is one who has no belief in the existence of a deity. There is no need to “formulate or chose a theory”.

    Can science explain life? Sure. The reasoning difficulty that you describe is based, I think, in our limited ability to comprehend the vastness of space and time. A million years is, for me, difficult to comprehend. Six-hundred million years, back to the time of the dinosaurs, I find even more difficult to imagine. The scientific evidence is that it is at least 3.5 billion years (that’s 3,500,000,000 years) since the first self-replicating entity appeared on earth. It was a random event in a universe of random events.

    From that original event its evolvement through single cells, cell clusters, and eventually to the diversity of complex plants and animals we see today has been a mighty slow process; again, so slow that it defies our easy comprehension.

    At the end of your second post you say something very revealing. It summarises so much of the ‘Christian’ world:

    “Thankfully I have come to realize that not all who profess to be Christians actually are Christians. Even those who don’t commit evil, but perpetuate the illogical explanations of the causes of pain and suffering – although they have good intentions, are usually not fully acquainted with what the bible really teaches.”

    In essence, If you don’t believe what I believe you’re not a true believer. “Christians must stick to reasoning from the bible.” Uh, what? Reasoning? Are we not back to ‘blind’ faith?

    Finally, “thought requires consciousness. And not just ordinary consciousness, it requires the conscious ability to contemplate things of a spiritual nature.” I wonder at the meaning of ‘spiritual’. Are we in the world of ‘things I understand but you don’t’? Or, does my appreciation of music and architecture count?

  7. 7 Colin Gunn November 7, 2010 at 7:50 am

    >>Not all scientists are atheists. Atheists are by no means all scientists.

    That’s right. I didn’t intend to equate the two. I was mearly grouping them together.

    Hypotheses:
    1/ A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
    2/ A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

    > They can certainly not, “formulate or chose any theory they like”

    Actually, acording to the definition of hypothesis they can.

    > An atheist is defined by the absence of something. It is one who has no belief in the existence of a deity. There is no need to “formulate or chose a theory”.

    Then why do so many athiests formulate so many theories as to why there is no God?

    > Your refrigerator/body illustration indicates that asking the question did not provide an answer for you. Consequently your ‘proof’ is the god of the gaps, i.e. I don’t know the answer so, obviously, God did it.

    There is no gap. The bible says quite clearly that God is the source and originator of life. The only gap it that of science in explaining what exactly that life force is. No scientist can give life to a lifeless object.

    > From that original event its evolvement through single cells, cell clusters, and eventually to the diversity of complex plants and animals we see today has been a mighty slow process; again, so slow that it defies our easy comprehension.

    Talking on a cellular level it sound so simple that one cell evolves into a multicellular organisim. However, even the most simple cell contains genes and DNA.

    For a cell to survive DNA, RNA and proteins must work together. How exactly did that all happen by chance? Prof Robert Shapiro (NYU)says that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical is so extremely unlikely that it’s a miracle that it happend in the first place.

    Protein molecules can be made up of as many as several thousand amino acids bound together in a highly specific order. The chance that just one protein containing only 100 amino acids could ever randomly form is about one in a million billion.

    Then consider that RNA is required to make proteins, and yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. So which came first, protein or RNA?

    There have been a number of experiments that attempt to replicate the environmental conditions similar to the time when life began. Some scientists have managed to create some molecules, but is this proof that life was the result of a random event? Hardly! These experiments have been conducted in precisely controled and meticulously planned laboratory conditions. That’s hardly random. Plus, if the chemicals in the experiment represent earth’s early environment, and the few molecules created represent the building blocks of life, who or what does the scientist conducting the experiment represent? Blind chance, or intelligent creator?

    The replication of DNA, a significant step in the process of “evolution” is another highly complex activity that apparently just came about by chance. I won’t go into it here, but do take the time to do some research.

    When you speak of “gaps” nothing fits the bill better than the theory of evolution. Would I be wrong in stating that evolution is a fundamental theory in atheism?

    Imagine you are searching through an abandoned mining town and came across two photos: The first is of an asian girl about 5 years old. One significant attribute that this little girl has is that she has only one leg. Photo number two is of a caucasian lady in her early 80’s, and she has both legs. You do some analysis at the lab and determine that the photo of the lady was taken about 75 years after the photo of the little girl. Would you, based on the “observable, empirical and measurable evidence” that you have in the two photos, conclude that the little asian girl grew another leg and “evolved” into a caucasian lady? Of course you wouldn’t. But that’s what evolutionists do every day. There is a gap that they can’t explain, so it must have evolved!

    And quickly, to finalise, not all faith is blind faith. Faith in God is not blind faith if a person has examined the scriptures and made “the truth” his own. Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer, and the universe is full of intelligent designs.

    Blind faith is to accept something as true and fact simply because someone has told you, because it sounds plausible, or because the alternative is unacceptable. That’s what many so called “christians”, and athiests do.

    If there is a creator, then that creator must have the right to determine how we should best live our lives. That’s not acceptable for many athiests. And it’s not helped by many who profess to be christians but who don’t hold fast to bible teachings. (2 Timothy 3:5)

    > Or, does my appreciation of music and architecture count?

    Yes, your appreciation for music and architecture do count towards spirituality. How does evolution or science account for the appreciation of music, a beautiful building, a mighty vista, or blazing sunset? In the theory of evolution, appreciation for these things is not a survival trait. We were created with the ability to appreciate because we were created by the “happy God” -1 Timothy 1:11.

    Regards,
    Colin

  8. 8 Colin Gunn November 7, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Opps, forgot one other point.

    > It was a random event in a universe of random events.

    The only reason we know so much about the universe is because it can all be explained by predictable, and precise, mathmatical formulas.

    How can scientists calculate the composition of stars millions and billions of light years away, or locate black holes, or predict the gravity of planets and other heavenly bodies.

    What percentage of the music, and architecture, that you appreciate came about by random chance? (Hebrews 3:4)

    Regards,
    Colin

  9. 9 The Pick Man November 7, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Colin,

    It would take far longer than I am prepared to give to respond to the many fallacious arguments that you make. I recognise that it would, in any case, probably be pointless.

    However, when considering evolution there is one thing that you should understand. Even though the words ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ are often used synonymously in common and informal conversation, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

    The OED has at least two definitions of ‘theory’. The definitions are quite different from one another.

    One defines a scientific theory. i.e. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed by observation or experiment and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

    The other defines a scientific hypothesis. i.e. A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view about something.

    These may be summed up as: ‘An idea that has been rigorously tested and proved’ and ‘An idea before it has been tested’. Scientist are using the first sense creationists are using the second.

    The easiest way to illustrate this is to quote Dawkins from, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. “A good example of Sense 1 is the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar system, the theory that Earth and the other planets orbit the sun. Evolution fits Sense 1 perfectly. Darwin’s theory of evolution is indeed a ’scheme or system of ideas or statements’. It does account for a massive ‘group of facts or phenomena’. It is ‘a hypothesis that has been confirmed by observation or experiment’ and, by general informed consent, it is ’a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed’. Scientists and creationists are understanding the word ‘theory’ in two very different senses. Evolution is a theory in the same sense that as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word ‘only’ be used, as in ‘only a theory’.”

    I think this may help when you approach the subject.

    Thanks for your advice to, “take the time to do some research”. I’ll try harder.

  10. 10 Colin Gunn November 7, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Can you give me an example of how evolution “has been confirmed by observation or experiment”?

    There are no observable smooth transitions from one species to another. What we have are huge “gaps”. Where are the half elephant half whales? Or the half horse half hippo? Or half chimp half man (otherwise known as the missing link)?

    Let’s take a butterfly for example. It starts out as an egg, then hatches into a caterpillar, then wraps itself into a cocoon and emerges as a butterfly. While in the cocoon it not only rebuilds itself physically, but also rearranges it’s neurology. Was that a product of blind, random, chance?

    During the caterpillar stage it can’t reproduce – an act that is essential for the survival of the species. Where is your observable evidence that this is a product of evolution?

    And I’ll ask the question again; how much of the music and architecture that you appreciate came about by random chance? You can’t get more observable evidence than that. Intelligent design requires an intelligent creator.

    Let’s conduct a simple experiment where the results will be undeniably observable and measurable. We will both get 100 pieces of leggo; you will place your leggo blocks into a bucket and shake it all up. I’ll give my leggo blocks to my six year old son. Which one of us, do you think, will end up with a block house first? And how long would it take the other?

    And just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding: my suggestion to do some research was not an insult. I meant that I didn’t have the time, or the room to go into details. Perhaps I could have phrased it better.

    Regards,
    Colin

  11. 11 The Pick Man November 8, 2010 at 2:06 am

    “Where are the half elephant half whales? Or the half horse half hippo?”

    What? Really!! Have you never heard of a crocaduck?

    http://tinyurl.com/24qttha

  12. 12 Colin Gunn November 10, 2010 at 2:27 am

    Ha! That’s quite good. 🙂


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




Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 49 other followers

AtheistBlogroll5
Free counters!

%d bloggers like this: