Has God Given Enough Evidence for a Rational Faith?

By Sean McDowell Published on December 2, 2017

As a college student, I explored significant doubts I had about my faith. It bothered me that God didn’t make His existence more obvious. In fact, one skeptic made me wonder: Why doesn’t God write “Jesus Saves” on the moon or “Made by God” on each cell?

After carefully examining the evidence, however, I became convinced that God has made himself known (Rom. 1:18–21; 2:14, 15). He has not made Himself known exhaustively, but He has sufficiently. Consider three prominent arguments for the existence of God:

The “Cosmological” Argument

Both scientific and philosophical reasons help us conclude that the cosmos, at some point, had a beginning. Given that something can’t begin to exist without a cause, the cause must be outside the cosmos. Since matter, time and energy simultaneously came into existence at a finite point in the past, the cause is plausibly timeless, immaterial, intelligent, powerful and personal. Simply put, the beginning of the universe points to a Beginner.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

The Fine-Tuning of the Laws of Physics

The laws of physics that govern the universe are exquisitely fine-tuned for the emergence and sustenance of human life. The slightest changes in any number of physical constants would make our universe inhospitable. The most compelling and reliable explanation for why the universe is so precisely fine-tuned is that an Intelligent Mind made it that way. Simply put, the fine-tuning of the universe points to a Fine-Tuner.

The Moral Argument

This argument reasons that since objective moral values exist, so must God. If God does not exist, then moral values are ultimately subjective and nonbinding. Yet we know objective moral values are real. Therefore, since moral values do exist, God must as well. Simply put, the existence of moral values points to a universal Moral Lawgiver.

Much more could be said about these arguments. My father and I go into depth on each one of these (and more) in the updated Evidence that Demands A Verdict. And we also explore the historical evidence for the deity of Christ and his resurrection. There is evidence for those who want to consider it.

Why Doesn’t God Just Prove His Existence?

So then why doesn’t God make his existence more evident? Why didn’t God write “Jesus Saves” with the stars? This troubled me until I realized that it’s an absurd request. After all, what language would God write it in? Hebrew? Arabic? English? And if he wrote it in a particular language, wouldn’t all the illiterate people throughout history object? What about all the blind people? Clearly the request for God to write “Jesus Saves” in the stars wouldn’t actually fix the supposed problem.

Remember: God is not interested in proving His existence, but in knowing mankind personally (John 17:1-5). As counterintuitive as it may seem, there is no reason to believe that if God were to make His existence more manifest that more people would repent of their sin enter into a saving relationship with Him.

He has offered sufficient evidence for rational faith. The question is — Will we trust Him?

God revealed Himself tirelessly in the Old Testament by sending plagues to Egypt, parting the Red Sea, and destroying the enemies of Israel. Sadly, this didn’t produce lasting heart-change in the people. They continually rebelled and followed other gods.

And even in the New Testament, when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, the religious leaders want to kill Lazarus and run Jesus out of town. Therefore, even if God blazoned “Jesus Saves” in the stars, we would have little reason to believe this would generate lasting faith.

God is not interested in merely proving His existence. But for those with eyes to see, and ears to hear, God has made Himself known. He has offered sufficient evidence for rational faith. The question is — Will we trust Him?

 

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

 

Originally published at SeanMcDowell.org. Used by permission.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Craig Roberts

    “Rational Faith” is an obvious oxymoron. While faith is not irrational, it must transcend mere reason to be true faith.

    • Ken Abbott

      If Christian faith is not irrational as you wrote (and I certainly agree that is true), then logically it must be rational. Therefore the phrase “rational faith” cannot be an oxymoron, defined as a word that joins incongruous or contradictory terms. Perhaps you mean only to affirm that faith is more than reason, that it encompasses reason but is not limited by it. That is certainly also true, for Christian faith possesses the additional element of trust.

      • Craig Roberts

        Faith (like love) is beyond reason. While someone can be gifted with superior rational skills, the gift of faith is independent of their ability to reason. This is why a child-like faith is often more authentic than the meticulously well reasoned theologians. It is also why many of our greatest thinkers are atheists. Apologists argue like “faith” is something that reason can grasp. This reduces religion to an exercise of the intellect. But true faith can be practiced by simpletons.

        At some point the intellect interferes with faith by pointing out something obvious like, “a talking snake? Really?” While apologists place great stock in having a Ph.D. their arguments only become more and more ludicrous as they attempt to take the mystery out of something that is essentially, at it’s heart, mysterious.

        Thank you for the reply. Your thought on the matter are appreciated.

        • Craig, everything turns on how you define “faith.” It is one of the many annoying reasons any kind of conversation with most atheists is fruitless. They define faith in a way the prejudices it against religious belief. For them faith is what you need when you lack evidence. Much to the contrary, I would argue that all faith is “rational” because of the why I define faith. I don’t see “faith” as a religious concept at all, but rather as a requirement of human existence. How do I define it? Faith is trust based on adequate evidence. Simple. And it applies to every area of life. So when we look throughout Scripture, never do we see God demanding his people’s belief or faith (trust) just because he says so. It’s really a fascinating study for me as I’ve been very slowing reading and writing my way through the Bible this time around (very slow process!).

          I could give innumerable examples, but obviously not many in a blog post comment. Jesus himself says if you are going to believe my words, then believe them because of the miracles! He tells John The Baptist’s disciples when John’s in prison getting ready to lose his head and doubting, tell John what I’ve done and what I’m doing (quoting Isaiah). God tells Moses to go to Egypt and confront Pharaoh, and what does Moses do? He asks God for evidence! And God says throw down your staff, and it turns into a snake. After Jesus rose from the dead Luke tells us in Acts 1 that Jesus gave many “convincing proofs” that he was alive. God always condescended to his people’s need for evidence.

          So everything you are saying about “faith” may be absolutely true as far as I can tell depending on how you define faith. And a mystery isn’t counter to reason, only beyond it. We are never called to believe the absurd, for instance. In fact when John used the very loaded term for Jesus’ name, Logos in Greek, he and his readers knew exactly what he was doing. In fact the word logic is derived from logos! But again, everything turns on definition. For instance, I don’t believe knowledge by itself induces pride. People are proud of all kinds of things, including their ignorance! The sinful, rebellious human heart is the problem, not knowledge (see I Cor. 8:1,2–Paul was no cynic, but called us to epistemological humility).

          These are conversations I wish Christians would have more often. Thanks.

          • Ken Abbott

            Excellent observations as well.

          • Craig Roberts

            Thank you for a very thoughtful and illuminating reply. While I can’t argue with what you say because it rings much too true I can point out that the opposite often also occurs in the Bible. Demanding God give a sign or prove himself is a great way to get smoked. “Thou shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” Testing God is a no no more often than not.

            Jesus often rebukes the crowds that ask for a sign of his authority (Matt 12:39, 16:4, Luke 11:29) or answers in such curious fashion that they can hardly be blamed for their confusion (John 2:18, 6:30). Even more weird is his explanation when the disciples ask why he speaks in parables. In multiple accounts Jesus quotes Isaiah (6:9), “Though seeing, they may not perceive; though hearing, they may not understand.”

            So the God who some famous theologian (Aquinas?) described as “incapable of deceiving or of being deceived” is at least content to let many people continue in ignorance. Perhaps this is so they will not incur greater guilt when judged.

          • JP

            Jesus rebuked those who sought more signs from Him because He had already given enough by His miracles. The problem was not with His miracles which they could see but their hardened hearts.

          • Thank you! The psychological dynamic for putting God to the test versus needing evidence to trust him is one that is ultimately something that is hidden in the paradox of the fallen, sinful human heart. Somewhere deeply embedded there is a pride that can set itself up against God, as if it can define ultimate reality apart from God’s definition of things, a la Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve, “You will be like God . . . ” Who really knows, though. Being a Christian of the Reformed persuasion, I believe it’s all up to God from first to last. But I do notice over and over again how God condescends to our need for reasons and evidence, something to go on, that we can trust him. I notice in my own life, and throughout Scripture, he rarely makes it easy, ultimately for our good and his glory.

        • JP

          You can’t do science without faith.

          • Craig Roberts

            If by “faith” you mean confidence that nature will yield intelligible answers to scientific questions. While that sort of faith is one definition it’s not what we mean by religious faith. Religious faith maintains that God has revealed himself to us and that those revelations are way beyond science and our natural reason.

          • JP

            What you describe is not Christian faith. Christian faith is a belief in something that a person has good reasons to believe is true.

    • GPS Daddy

      Every person has a worldview. If you are human and living you have a view of the world by just the choices you make in life. But a worldview cannot be totally factual. There are parts of every worldview that are just assumed to be true. For example, you assume that the information your senses are giving you is an accurate account of the world around you. These assumptions are things that are taken by faith. You have faith in your senses.

      Do you remember geometry from high school. Geometry has a set of axioms. These axioms must not contradict each other. One of the things you learn in geometry is to show that the axioms do not do this. From these axioms theorems are developed. The same is true in worldviews but its harder to do. Most people have things they accept as true that are in conflict with other things they accept is true. For instance, some accept Jesus but also believe in reincarnation. Those two do not work together.

      Worldviews can range from very irrational to rational. Every person tends to think their worldview is rational. The key to Christianity is not having every little theological point down but knowing and living from the Father’s heart.

      • Craig Roberts

        Nice! I would like to point out that “faith” is axiomatic to theology. It is impossible to seriously examine and explore a world view that you do not believe in. It would be irrational. Therefore “faith” comes first and only then can the rational implications follow. The problem is that many apologists approach atheists as if they have simply failed to understand the logic of their theological arguments. In reality, the atheists underlying assumptions make it impossible for him to consider a “theological” argument in the first place.

        The only way I can think of to get an atheist to change his mind is to somehow show him that he is psychologically prejudiced against faith. This is a tough task because it would hurt the atheists pride to be proven ignorant of something so monumental. Thanks for the interesting reply.

        • SAMTHECAT

          That is where the Holy Spirit comes in and prayer.

          • Craig Roberts

            Spoken like a true man of faith. 🙂

    • Ronky

      Faith must also never contradict reason, otherwise it is false religion or superstition. One must use faith AND reason together, like two wings lifting a bird as St JP2 put it. Or as Einstein said “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”; you can substitute “Reason without faith is lame; faith without reason is blind.”
      Faith is essential, yes. But not blind faith. St St peter said “always be ready to give a REASON for the hope that you have”.

  • SAMTHECAT

    Jesus stated that “even if one were to rise from the dead they wouldn’t believe”. Faith is the ultimate response to the revelation of the overwhelming love of God which pursues each of us, abject and loveless, but worth the death of His Son; a love that will not let us go.

  • Olaf

    Fine tuning of the biological cell, the irreducibly complexity of the cell, the origin of information, all also point to the existence of a supernatural (more than physical nature) being.

    • GPS Daddy

      Exactly. The origin of information in life cannot come from random processes nor mathematical patterns. Patterns that re seen in things like water draining down a sink do not expand to the information needed for life. There exists no physical process that can generate life information.

  • davidrev17

    @Craig Roberts

    Please consider this far-less-than 140-character response (: of which sorta erupted, after reading some great interaction between you et al. on this post; as well as carefully evaluating all of the relevant Scripture I provided, in specific context:

    The situation so often overlooked, or goes unnoticed in these conversations, is that one either “a priori” (“by faith”) believes that an “other-worldly,” personal MIND represents Ultimate reality, such as that which is comprehensively taught throughout the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, from Genesis-to-Revelation; namely everything that exists, derives its “contingent existence” from literal scientific NOthingness – aka the Bible’s personal “Ruach haKodesh” [i.e., spirit/breath/wind], or the “Word of God” – OR else one believes (“by faith”), that NATURE itself represents Ultimate reality.

    (e.g., for the scientifically tenable biblical paradigm, see Genesis 1’s classic “and God said”; plus Psalm 33:6; Deuteronomy 8:3b; Isaiah 42:5; 45:18; Jeremiah 10:12; Job 33:4; 34:14-15; Zechariah 12:1; John 1:1-3; 6:63; Colossians 1:14-17; Hebrews 11:3.)

    Please keep in mind, that this biblically revealed concept of “creation ex-nihilo,” is beautifully, or elegantly “quantum-consistent” with our current (some) 60 year-old “Standard Model of Physics” as well. Alternatively however, one can easily locate today’s competing naturalistic, “this-worldly” (“By Faith”) metanarrative, vividly illustrated in the late Carl Sagan’s wholly materialistic, though no doubt UNscientific ideological mantra: “The cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.”

    Now, just like another individual mentioned to you below: the scientific enterprise itself proceeds, or operates, from this very BY FAITH principle called “Methodological Naturalism.” So my friend, it seems to this rather “ignorant and unlearned” (Acts 4:13) follower of Jesus, like you’re struggling mightily to “see,” or discern “the forest,” whose obvious tangible presence is on manifest display throughout the presence of those proverbial “trees”?? And if I’m wrong in this, please clarify if you will?

    Additionally, don’t you find it more than a little strange, that we “fallen” Homo sapiens’ (esp. the ultra-smart ones) have regularly grappled with the seeming elementary deduction, or observation, that the ONLY “Source” for reason & logic itself – would be capable of instantiating reason & logic within nature’s ONLY rational/moral animals?

    You know, those Homo sapiens’ of whom alone, are capable of conducting mathematically-based scientific research (while utilizing those NON-physical numbers too); or engage in highly abstract logical thought processes – not to mention ultra-sophisticated philosophy, as well as performing activities such as music, art, poetry etc? Hence this is the very reason why I’m stressing the biblical worldview, that MIND represents Ultimate reality. Do you remember what the mind-bogglingly brilliant (no pun intended) Albert Einstein observed around 100-years ago, re: the “rational intelligibility” of the cosmos?

    “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility.”

    Now having said all of this, please consider the spiritual implications perpetually plaguing the ONLY “rational”/”moral” animal species inhabiting this biosphere, aka those “specially created” spirit-creatures; whose “fallen,” thus spiritually blinded condition (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:14) has been penetratingly diagnosed in the passage (just below), of which brother Sean appropriately cites in the context of this article (i.e., Romans 1:18-21).

    You might also carefully consider the causally correlative “reason,” underlying OUR collective “hardness of heart,” stated at the end of v. 18; of whose existentially tragic “spiritual condition,” theologians have long-since taught has been exposed through Yahweh’s universal method of “general revelation,” to ALL of His rational/moral spirit-creatures. (This is exactly why atheists etc. are both irrationally, thus illogically, living in outright tail-chasing DENIAL! See Psalm 14:1; Ecclesiastes 3:11; Romans 2:14-15)

    Also, carefully meditate, if you will, upon the biblical concept of “special revelation,” found in texts like Hebrews 1:1-4; then consider God’s sovereign, personal responsibility for addressing this eternally dreadful condition, in texts such as Acts 17:30-31. Yahweh certainly “hasn’t left Himself without adequate witness,” on planet earth, throughout redemptive history; notwithstanding your curious “Christian” protestations and/or observations to the contrary on this post.

    After all, our Creator has “set eternity in our [NON-physical] hearts” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). And notice the same spiritual diagnosis for mankind’s perpetual volitional ironheartedness, or intransigence [e.g., “general revelation” once again], in that classic 3,000 year-old passage, Psalm 19:1-4, whose text I’ll paste right after the Romans 1:18-21 passage.

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of people, who SUPPRESS [or hold down, avoid, ignore] THE TRUTH in unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For from the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless hearts were darkened.” (Romans 1:18-21/LEB)

    Surely you’re aware that the Word of God consistently teaches that our “fallen” sin condition – i.e., meaning we’re spiritually “dead in our transgressions and sins” (e.g., Eph. 2:1-6) – is THE reason for our hopeless, autonomously defiant rebellious behavior; creatures of whom desperately require personal, intimate Divine intervention, otherwise we perish eternally. Yet for some “reason,” we still UNreasonably, thus defiantly choose to resist?? (i.e., Matthew 7:13-14; John 3:19-20)

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    “The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky displays his handiwork. Day after day it speaks out; night after night it reveals his greatness.There is no actual speech or word, nor is its voice literally heard. Yet its voice echoes throughout the earth; its words carry to the distant horizon…” (Psalm 19:1-4).

    It sure is strange how WE Homo sapiens’ worship nature, “by faith,” but mind-numbingly refuse to consider the powerful implications revealed through 21st-century scientific research – from cosmology, to molecular biology at that – that there just might be an omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent “Source” existing not only “behind” nature, but omnipresently as well, throughout its materialistic confines…aka “upholding the universe by the word of His power.” (Hebrews 1:3/ESV; Deuteronomy 8:3b)

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    “Now faith is the realization of what is hoped for, the proof of things not seen. For by this the people of old were approved. [3] By faith we understand the worlds [material universe] were created by the word of God, in order that what is seen, did not come into existence from what is visible….[6] Now without faith it is impossible to please him [God], for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists, and is a rewarder of those who seek him” (Hebrews 11:1-3, 6/LEB, my emphasis of course.)

    ☆ ☆ ☆

    There IS a non-physical Creator God, of whom has supernaturally, thus personally revealed Himself to His rational/moral spirit-creatures Homo sapiens, in time-space-dimension history – in the person of Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth; whose highly-compelling “consilience” of profoundly provocative evidence for this Divine visitation made available to mankind – surely doesn’t require that one necessarily make that penoratively labeled blind “leap-of-faith,” into a rational/logical abyss of intellectual proportions. Thankfully, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”!

    What say you? Are those influential, militant evangelical atheists of this world currently challenging your worldview; or somehow causing you to feel intellectually (i.e., rationally & logically) impoverished, foolish, or uncomfortable?? (See in this context, 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; 2:1-16; Isaiah 55:8-9)

    • Craig Roberts

      Wow! I’m sold. You should write for The Stream. But I find it interesting that St. Paul insistence that the gospel is “foolishness to the gentiles” should be contradicted by so many apologists.

      • Ken Abbott

        The intent is not to contradict Paul but to obey Peter (and the Holy Spirit that inspired them both), to prepare ourselves to give an answer for the hope that we have.

  • Trilemma

    The Big Bang Theory may one day be replaced by a theory in which the universe always existed in which case a cause is no longer needed. Even if there was a cause, there’s no need for it to be timeless, immaterial or personal.

    If the universe had not been “fined tuned” then we would not be here marveling at how fine tuned it is. Therefore, a fine tuner is not needed.

    How do we know objective moral values are real? Moral values are easily explained by natural selection. Groups of humans had a better chance of survival than individuals. Moral values developed naturally for humans to be able to live in groups. Therefore, a moral lawgiver is not necessary.

    Abiogenesis looks scientifically impossible so belief in a creator being is rational. Belief that this creator being is perfectly described by the Bible is not rational.

    • Ken Abbott

      Has the universe always existed in its current state? Not according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which mandates a beginning state. What was that beginning state and why did it change?

      Why is there something rather than nothing? If at one point there was nothing, then nothing is all there ever would “be.” We can’t get something from nothing.

      Your first paragraph starts out with a great deal of handwaving, a kind of “science of the gaps” plea, and then descends into nonsense. “Even if there was a cause, there’s no need for it to be timeless.” Oh? From where did it come, then?

      • Trilemma

        If you can’t get something from nothing then that would be an argument that the universe has to have always existed. What hand waving are you talking about? There are already theories that the universe has always existed. Here’s one. (Delete the space after the dots.)

        www. physics-astronomy. com/2017/09/no-big-bang-quantum-equation-predicts. html#.Widn-jdOnIU

        If there was a cause of the Big Bang singularity, it didn’t need to exist anymore after the Big Bang happened. Therefore, the cause doesn’t need to be eternal.

        • Ken Abbott

          Hand waving in the first sentence–it posits a hypothetical and rushes to reassure that “science” will explain it all someday.

          Trilemma, you are right that if there is now something then there has always had to be something. Reality cannot be explained as an illusion, or spontaneously generated out of nothing, or self-created (in order to self-create, something has to already exist in order to do the creating). So we are left with an eternally self-existent entity. The question then becomes: What is the nature of this self-existent entity?

    • davidrev17

      I thought I’d take the liberty to post a few tail-chasing examples of your fideistic (faith-based) materialist philosophical worldview beliefs; the essence of whose “pretzel logic,” should – if one is actually honest with one’s self – almost immediately leap-off the page at you.

      “…In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but [blind] pitiless indifference.”

      — Richard Dawkins, “River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life,” (1995).

      “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

      — Charles Darwin, [To William Graham 3 July 1881].

      “Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system [from a biological evolutionary perspective] enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. TRUTH, WHATEVER THAT IS, definitely takes the hindmost.” (My emphasis)

      — Distinguished atheist neurophilosopher, Dr. Patricia Churchland, quoted in renowned Emeritus Professor of Analytic Philosophy Alvin Plantinga’s, still valid “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism,” or (EAAN).

      “The hypothesis in question is ‘…that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”

      — the late atheist Nobel Laureate, Dr. Francis Crick, “The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul,” (’94/’95).

      ▪ ▪ ▪

      So according to your tenaciously held, ‘a priori’ materialist worldview belief system called “promissory materialism,” the ontological “realities” of Morality & Truth unique to rational/moral Homo sapiens alone – represents nothing more than a vacuous pipe-dream, of naturalistic sorts. And may the “Spirit of Truth” Himself, aka the “Ruach haKodesh,” continue to “draw you” into the light of His personal love and concern for your eternal wellbeing my friend!

  • Ronky

    And even if tomorrow someone discovered “Jesus saves” written in the stars, it would take less than 5 minutes before some pseudo-intellectual poseur came up with some supposed “natural scientific explanation” which most of our gullible fellow men would swallow unquestioningly, because to take the evidence at face value would cause them to make a discomforting re-evaluation of the way they are living their lives.

  • Vince

    Nothing remotely “rational” or “scientific” about the haters of Christianity. One study revealed that more than half of all atheists being in UFOs, which obviously cannot be proven by science. Also, they say “people are born gay and cannot change,” but again, no proof of that. Then there’s the whole global warming thing – they believe (based on faith, not science) that humans possess the power to set the earth to its “correct” temperature.

    I readily admit that the dogmas of my faith cannot be scientifically proven. Unfortunately, atheists will never admit that their own dogmas cannot be proven.

Inspiration
The Strangely Mysterious Beauty of Christmas
Tom Gilson
More from The Stream
Connect with Us