Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
We'd like to welcome you to season number three of the Harvester podcast.
We're happy that you are with us today.
I am one of your hosts, Brian Kenyon, along with me are Stephen Ford.
And Forest Antemasaris is usually with us, but this is a busy time of year for him.
He's had a brand new baby just recently and a lot of other things going on.
And so he will join us next time as soon as he can.
If that makes any sense next time, as soon as he can.
But anyway.
We're discussing here lessons on Christian apologetics, whole season three, and we've been
discussing the existence of God for the last few episodes.
And today's episode, we're in for a treat.
uh It is the Cosmological Argument Number Two on the existence of God, and this one is
entitled The Process of Elimination Argument.
But before we get into the details of that argument, George, bring us up to speed from
where we were last time.
Well, let's take a quick review of where we were last time.
We're pointing out that we're trying to develop step by logical step the argument that
shows that God exists and that the Bible is the Word of God and the Bible teaches a
particular matter.
We can know that that particular teaching is true.
So if God exists and the Bible is the Word of God and the Bible teaches some doctrine,
call it X, then that doctrine
must be true.
Now that has to be the case because if indeed the Bible is the word of a being who knows
everything and never lies, then whenever that being is teaching his case in the
scriptures, that would have to be a true statement.
So we're looking at first of all, God exists and that's where we are.
We're trying to establish that God does exist.
And we have already talked about the design argument, which I believe does establish that
God exists, that in and of itself.
The design argument in essence says that if you have an object that has parts that work
together to accomplish an identifiable purpose, then you have design.
And if you've got design, then they had to have been a designer.
who not only exists but has attributes at least equal to the task of causing such a
wonderful design, a wonderful object.
So the conclusion stated was that a house or a toothbrush, for example, or a clock had an
intelligent cause, not a non-intelligent cause.
This is because we know that humans have made such objects, plus, not just that, but plus
each is an object that has components working together to bring about an identifiable.
purpose.
Well on the same basis you have an object absent the human factor that also allows us to
conclude that the eye, the acorn, the dog, the flower and so forth also must have had an
ultimate intelligent cause.
So the design argument.
And then we moved last time into a second argument for the existence of God which is
traditionally called the cosmological argument.
Notice the word cosmos.
in that argument referring to an orderly universe and I intended to give two formulations
of that argument.
One, what I call the contingency to incongeniency argument and then a second formulation
of the cosmological argument which I call a process of elimination argument.
Last time we gave the contingency to incongeniency formulation.
Let me just review that.
We can begin
on that argument with a train moving along on tracks.
You see a series of boxcars only moving from left to right.
Neither a single boxcar nor the whole series for that matter of boxcars has the
wherewithal, that is the capacity to account for the motion.
And so then there is an implied locomotive, an unmoved mover, even though you do not see
it physically.
That is, given the laws of nature, there must be something that does have the adequate
wherewithal to move the boxcars.
We call that a locomotive.
The boxcars are dependent, that is, they are contingent things, but the locomotive in this
analogy is an independent, an incontinent thing.
It moves itself.
It is a self-mover.
in this analogy.
And so the boxcars represent the contingent beings in this world and the locomotive
represents the necessary incontinent being which we call God.
So cosmological argument number one, we raise the question then are there contingent
beings that exist in this world?
And then we name some of these of course a cow or a human being or a tomato or a container
or an automobile.
or any other even non-human made objects.
do exhibit the notion of contingency or the property I should say of contingency.
There are indeed contingent beings in this world.
Well, how do we account for their origin?
How did they get here?
Their existence implies the existence of an adequate and necessary incontinent being.
And this is because the contingent cannot account.
for its own existence.
And so then precisely put, cosmological argument number one, since contingent beings exist
and contingent beings imply the existence of an adequate incontinent being for their
existence, then it follows therefore that an adequate incontinent being, namely God,
exists.
And so then contingent beings imply an incontinent being, moved things imply an unmoved
mover,
Causes and effects imply an ultimate uncaused cause.
So that was the review of what we've covered up to this point.
And now we can proceed into cosmological argument number two.
And I call this a process of elimination argument.
And this reasoning begins by noticing that things exist in the present, lots of things.
How did it all get here?
Well, if we can just step back and try to simplify this uh so that I do not have to repeat
myself all the time.
Let us say that the letter N represents the whole statement.
The contingent beings that we observe popped into existence out of nothing.
N standing for nothing.
And then let I stand for another uh statement.
They are the present effect of an infinite series of matters, causes, and effects.
I for infinite.
And then the third possibility, G, they were created by a being external to them, at least
equal to the task that stands for the statement that God exists.
So here's the argument.
Premise number one, things exist in the present.
Premise number two,
in order to account for their presence either N is true or I is true or G is true that is
they either popped into existence out of nothing or they are the present effect of an
infinite series of matters causes and effects or they were created by a being external to
them equal to the task namely God.
That's premise number two.
Premise number three will not end.
That doesn't work.
They could not have popped into existence out of nothing because if there was ever a
moment when nothing existed, that is absolutely nothing, there would be nothing existing
now.
So that would happen to be a nonsense claim and thus we reject that.
Next, the answer cannot be
infinite series of causes and effects as we alluded to in the previous episode that is to
say the claim that the present the things the existing and contingent things that exist in
the present are the result of an infinite series of causes and effects that cannot be true
because that would mean then that the present is the end of uh an infinite series
and infinity then was traversed to get to the present.
Well that by definition cannot be true.
You cannot traverse infinity.
If you cannot traverse infinity from the present back to the past, you cannot traverse
infinity from the infinite past up to the present.
You cannot traverse infinity by definition.
That's what infinity means.
No end, no finesse.
And so then that one is not true.
And since the first, the second premise rather, exhausted all possibilities to account for
the existence of these present contingent things that we see, then it cannot be that, uh I
should say that it must be that the only thing that is left, namely the uh existence of
God being external to them,
and causing them is the truth.
Again, let me say that once again now.
So, premise number one, contingent things exist in the present.
Premise number two, these either came into existence out of nothing, or they are the
result of an infinite series of causes and effects, or the only other possibility is that
something external to them is at least equal to the task of causing them.
and being itself an incontinent thing and therefore accounts for their existence.
Well, it's not coming into existence out of nothing.
You cannot traverse infinity and therefore by process of elimination it must be that the
only alternative, namely God, is in existence.
God accounts for these, these contingent things.
And I think it's very important, and of course, at the present, this is just an audio.
actually, I think we are working on getting slides to this.
I think it's just so important for us to realize that premise number two, either they
popped into existence out of nothing, or they are an infinite series of matters, causes,
and effects, or they're made by God.
I mean, I think we have to emphasize that and George mentioned it a couple of times in
that, those are the only possible exhausts.
There's no other option but those three.
And since it's not, you know, they popped into existence and it cannot be, and it cannot
be the infinite series of causes.
It has to be.
I mean, has to be whether you believe it or not, whether you understand or not.
I mean, you can comprehend it, but it has to be.
And of course we talked about this uh in the earlier episodes of this season that, you
know, any logical argument, if it's, you know, valid and sound, I mean, if those premises,
and this is a...
If it's valid and all the premises are true.
the conclusion has to be true it's like there's no option
has to be right so what that's why i call this a process of elimination again uh...
we've exhausted all possibilities we know that they exist in the present uh...
only a silly person would deny that and i have a account for their origin how did you get
here well there are three possibilities and and if you can eliminate too then the other
one necessarily follows must be the truth
And again, going back, this is we have to define our terms.
I once heard a debate where a creationist and an atheist were debating several premises,
but one of them was something right along these lines here, and the atheist says something
along the lines, well, something can come from nothing, but he redefined the term nothing.
And so for him, nothing was like nothing on the visible spectrum or something like that.
He says, even with nothing, like if you go to outer space, there's nothing, there's still
dark matter and all this kind of stuff.
He says, well, no, that's not nothing.
So it's nothing.
And so they just kind of change the terminology.
They're moving the goalposts.
They can take the word nothing and assign to it attributes of something and then call it
nothing and then say, here's how something can come from.
That would just be a semantic game If in fact you have something whether however you
characterize it then you've got something right you don't have nothing when we say nothing
we mean Absolutely nothing zero.
However, eventually run out of words in describing it, but that's what we mean Absence of
everything would be another way of saying it with the King's English eventually will run
out of words, but that's what we're pointing to with
with these terms and uh now if in fact someone asserts that there is something out there
then of course all they're doing is moving the argument back to that where'd that come
from and then we're starting it from ground zero all over again trying to explain the
origin of it so it's inescapable we do need to come up with an explanation for the origin
of the something that is present and uh
And so again, things exist in the present.
If this is denied, uh remember Rene Descartes argument.
I think therefore I am.
That is, even if I doubt my existence, I must exist to do the doubting.
So it's inescapable that something exists.
At least I exist and I'm a contingent thing.
And of course, more than I just I exist.
But uh there's it's inescapable that something does exist and that that's something
is contingent.
And so then how do we, how did it get here?
Well, it either popped into existence out of nothing, which I believe we can show is just
absolute nonsense.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, then there'd be nothing now.
I mean nothing, the absence of something.
Or it's an infinite series of matters caused and effect, or it's something external to it,
equal to the task, namely, in other words, God.
Well, it can't be N.
This is true because it can't be nothing because if there ever were nothing in existence,
there would be nothing now.
Nothing does not have the capacity to cause anything.
Right.
So that can't work.
Well, it can't be infinite series of cause and effect.
This is true because by definition, infinity cannot be traversed to get to the present
things that exist by definition.
And therefore by process of elimination in logic, this is called a disjunctive syllogism.
If you exhaust all possibilities in an early premise and you succeed in denying everything
but one, then the only thing that is left must be the true state.
I think it's important to like the so-called Big Bang Theory, know, supposedly matter was
a pin the size of a pinhead and that blew up.
But I mean, that still begs the question, where did that matter come from and what caused
the bang?
You what is the cause, the adequate cause?
And so.
which is moving that movie and back that's all right that that ultimately is an evasion
and we're interested in the uh...
ultimate explanation to that this and uh...
we can tend that it all leads necessarily to the existence of god
Okay, yes.
And so far as the process of elimination argument, there's another one that you have that
involves the moral aspect.
So let's move on to that then, the moral argument for the existence of God.
And I intend to give two formulations of this argument today.
And to help understand the first formulation, we can begin with a claim that some have
made, followed by a question for discussion.
And here are some claims regarding the Manson murders, for example, in August 1969, the
so-called Tate and Labyanka killings in a documentary
Decades later, Charles Manson, looking back, said, quote, you do what you feel is right.
You do what you think is right.
Now whatever you think is right has got to be right, unquote.
Now think carefully about that statement.
A Manson follower, Lynette Squeaky-Fram, observed, quote, but I still believe that they
were right because they felt right.
They felt that despite the ugliness of it, it was the right thing to do." Unquote.
So this gives rise to a question that I'd like for us to think about for a moment.
Is the basis of what is morally right and morally wrong ourselves or something external to
us?
That is, what determines moral right and wrong?
Either I do or another human or some group of humans that I choose or is it something
outside of all of us?
Any thoughts on that?
Yeah, I like the second way that you kind of expanded on that because there was some that
would argue about is it ourselves or something external?
There are some that would argue it's not just me, myself, but it's the culture.
It's the group thing.
So whatever the group has decided on is moral or immoral, and that's the standard for what
it is.
uh...
so if you know if there's one person but maybe there some selection of some days bird
selection of scholars
But just like with the cosmological argument and one highlighter, I mean, argues all the
way back to God.
mean, so morality, because it's definitely rationally, logically, it's outside of myself,
the standard.
Now there's some subjective things, but they're not really moral.
Like I might like chocolate ice cream today, but not like it tomorrow.
But that's not a moral thing, but morality.
ought to do, you know, there's, yeah, morality involves oughtness, not just something is,
but.
And what's the absolute basis upon which we would make a claim that such and such is a
moral act and this this action is in what upon what do we base that is the question is
that our is it the human being is it a Group of human beings that I happen to select is it
all the human beings is that going to work?
Must it be something external to us to which we go to determine what we
must say is moral and immoral.
I think there's some examples also to look at in just uh history how in every culture,
just about at every period of time, there are some things that are staples in those
cultures.
Now not in every single example, but in most cultures it's wrong to kill, wrong to murder.
So where would various cultures in various times in various places, how would they come to
that same exact conclusion?
ah
I think that is one evidence that there's something outside of those individuals in
different places.
like, know, people will point to, it's always, I don't want to say it's comical, but it's
ironic almost that people would say, well, look, you have these pyramids and these various
continents that points to these aliens or, you know, they came down and showed everybody
how to make the same pyramids.
And then, you know, so you can at least say, well, you see something that demonstrates
there's a unique or uh common, you know, a creator or something like that.
But then when you come to moral ah staples within a community, well that does not point to
anything.
That's just happenstance or something.
How can you have these various locations that come to you and various cultures and with
all sorts of different backgrounds and things, how can they come to those same
conclusions?
I think it has to point to something outside of those cultures that has created a baseline
standard for what's right.
an interesting qu- an interesting study would be to collect some of those common
principles of morality and then raise the question why are they common?
but we're coming back to what philosophers call subjective ethics versus objective ethics.
So if we claim that the basis of morality is the human being or some group of human beings
and the human being or human beings then feel that this particular action is moral and
they feel that this particular action is immoral.
That is what is termed subjective ethics.
Subjective ethics referring to the claim that morality is solely determined by what human
beings feel about a particular matter.
On the other hand,
There is the view called objective ethics.
Objective ethics simply means that the standard, that is the basis of what is morally
right and morally wrong is something independent of human beings to which human beings
look to determine that this particular action is moral or this one is immoral.
And so then there you have the two bases of moralities that are out there on the table.
Subjective ethics versus objective ethics.
Now here is moral argument number one.
Premise number one.
Either atheism is true or theism is true.
This exhausts all possibilities.
By atheism, of course, we mean that God does not exist.
There is no God.
Versus theism, God does exist.
Well, it's either one or the other.
This exhausts all possibilities.
We know that because of the very terms that we're using here, theism and atheism.
Theism means belief in God, atheism, that A is coming from a Greek word meaning not.
No, it's a denial, the contradiction of theism.
So that exhausts all possibilities.
Premise number two.
If atheism is true, then subjective ethics must be true.
That is to say, if
there is no God, then the basis of morality as to what is morally right, what is morally
wrong, all you're left with is the human being.
And so then it would have to be a subjective ethics.
Premise number three.
But if subjective ethics is true, then a contradiction follows.
That is, human beings contradict one another in their opinions, in their feelings.
uh Even the same person can
can uh contradict himself or herself.
They feel that they have mixed feelings about something.
What is that term that we sometimes use?
Mixed feelings.
Even within the same person.
Or take for example the Nazis in their treatment of the Jews.
uh Many of them felt that that was the right thing to do.
Well if I can find somebody else who felt the opposite, like myself, then
That would mean given subjective ethics, then the action was both moral and immoral
simultaneously.
They feel it's right, I feel it's wrong.
And if subjective ethics, if human feeling is the only basis, is the sole basis for
determining what's morally right and wrong, then I've got a contradiction that follows.
Premise number four, all contradictions are false.
Permiss number five, therefore, subjective ethics must be false because any doctrine, and
we can show this logically, any doctrine that implies a false doctrine is itself false.
Therefore, atheism must be false because atheism implies subjective ethics, which we have
determined is false, demonstrated as false.
And again, anything that implies a false doctrine is itself false.
Therefore then atheism is false and thus theism, the only alternative to atheism, must be
true.
So again, going through that quickly, moral argument number one.
Premise number one, either atheism or theism.
Premise two, if atheism then subjective ethics.
Premise three, if subjective ethics, then a contradiction follows.
Premise four, not a contradiction, that can't be true.
All contradictions are false.
Premise five.
Therefore, subjective ethics must be false.
Therefore, atheism must be false.
Therefore, it must be that the only alternative to atheism, namely theism, is true.
Anybody have any thoughts on that argument?
A lot of premises, but when you follow them, yeah, it's true because all the...
these because you think about it carefully.
All the premises are true, therefore the conclusions, and this has three conclusions in
it, but the ultimate conclusion is God exists.
Yeah, there's a lot of material there, but I think it's worth looking at because if there
is a God, let's just say if there's even the question that there is a God,
then it's worth investigating because if there is a God and he is the God of the Bible and
he is moral and he will judge and he is these things that he describes himself as being
then it's worth one's time and energy to expend, to exhaust every option, investigate
everything you can, leave no stone unturned so you can discover whether or not this thing
is true.
There's just too much at stake to just leave it at chance.
on the heels of that, Stephen, one gentleman said, if there is no God, then nothing really
matters.
When you come right down to it, we can eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
He says, again, if there is no God, nothing really matters, not really.
On the other hand, if there is a God, nothing matters more.
So that's a wonderful pursuit.
uh...
maybe just me who talk about this argument once again and and a little more time on the on
justifying each statement what you do with an argument is you set it forth and then you go
back and look at each statement and think about what them and see if that's true or false
and if it's true then you go to the next and so forth and you put them all together so the
first premise either atheism or theism
Well, that does exhaust all possibilities, doesn't it?
It has to be one or the other.
If it's not one, it has to be the other.
In simpler language, either God exists or he does not exist.
one of the other and if you can show that God does not exist and you have thereby shown
that the only alternative And the other hand if you can show that uh That uh it works in
the other direction too if you can show of course that there is no God It must be that
atheism that the ism is is false.
So uh it's one of the other
That exhausts all possibilities.
That's good because now we can try to see if we can determine whether one is true or false
and that also implies the truth value of the other.
So premise number two, if atheism is true, then subjective ethics is true.
Well, if there is no God, then all that is left as the basis of morals is the human being
and what humans feel about it.
And uh so then that follows.
And then premise number three, if subjective ethics is the case, that is if right and
wrong is solely determined by what people feel about a human being, then since human
beings contradict themselves, their feelings, as illustrated by the Nazis, some of them
felt that was right thing to do, and I feel it's the wrong thing to do.
So it must be both right and wrong if that's all you've got is subjective ethics.
There's no standard outside of human being.
Well, but all contradictions are false.
Now, if you deny that, you're tearing the very fabric of reality.
I mean, you'd have to, in order to deny the law of non-contradiction, you'd have to use
the law of non-contradiction to deny it.
So you'd be shooting yourself in the foot.
So that's inescapably true that all contradictions are false.
different humans are even the same human can have and do have contradictory feelings on
whether the same actions more or more but all contradictions of false this is a
self-evident truth one of the laws of thought and therefore it must be that subjective
ethics is false just combine three and four and therefore must be that if they feel is
most falls just combined premises to win
and five, and therefore it must be that the only alternative to atheism, namely theism,
must be true.
Some good thought, good honest thought given to each of the premises, I believe, shows
that therefore this conclusion must be the case.
Yeah, the conclusion is definitely undeniable based upon the premises.
And the premises exhaust all possibilities.
denied one then you thereby imply that the other one must be the case and uh Just a matter
as a matter of interest the Bible itself The Bible puts it like this in Jeremiah 10 23
Oh Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself.
It is not in man who walks to direct his steps.
So Jeremiah 10.23 is denying here what we call subjective ethics.
So that's moral argument number one.
Moral argument number two.
Thomas B.
Warren provided some helpful preliminary information to think about.
before we formulate moral argument number two in this series.
He explains that to justify the claim that an action is evil, ought to be done, there must
be an objective standard that is some law that that action violates.
If we know that there is evil, then we know that there was a law that was violated.
In the Warren Flu Debate,
He puts it like this, atheist flu says the Nazis were guilty of real objective moral
wrong.
So that's an admission by the atheist flu in that debate.
That means real moral wrong, which entails an objective standard, Warren points out.
An objective standard that is some higher law.
Warren pressed the point in the question.
He says, what law then did the Nazis violate?
If you're to agree that there is an objective moral standard, the moral that they
violated, what is that standard then?
What law did they, did the Nazis violate?
It cannot be the law of England or America for they were not under the jurisdiction of
England or America.
It cannot be passed pre-Nazi German law.
That is, it cannot be uh ex post facto law for the Nazis made their own laws for their
time.
As Justice Robert Jackson said at the Nuremberg trial, 1945 to 46, quote, it was some
higher law that transcends the provincial and the transient that they violated, the Nazis.
The provincial is the area of Germany, that is the geographical area, and the transient is
the period of time in which the Nazis had charge of Germany.
So Warren continues, above,
what is involved in a certain locality during a certain period of time.
That is what they violated.
Also, Warren points to such an objective standard as the only justifiable basis upon which
one can judge that there is moral degeneration in a society.
Witness the Nazi regime based on Hitler's whims and fancies compared with the way it was
before Hitler.
Yeah.
If you claim that there is moral progress made in a society compared with a previous or
subsequent society, if you're going to say that there is moral progress made or a moral
degeneration, you are thereby implying that there was some objective standard of morality
against you, which you are making that measure.
Now, with all that in mind, let me formulate moral argument number two.
Premise number one.
And think about each of these premises, these statements, carefully, one by one as we
proceed through.
Premise number one, if we can know that there is objective that is outside of human,
humans, moral evil, then we can know that there is a transcendent law that was violated,
transcendent meaning above the provincial and the transient.
Premise number two.
If we can know that there is a transcendent law that was violated, then we can know that
there is a transcendent moral law giver, which we call God.
In other words, you cannot have a transcendent law without a law giver.
Premise number three, we can know that there is objective moral evil.
Evil that is outside of human feelings.
Permiss number four, therefore we can know that there is transcendent law that was
violated, this just combines one and three, and therefore, conclusion, we can know that
there is transcendent moral law giver, God.
And so then there we have argument number two.
Quickly I'll go through it again.
Permiss number one, if we can know that there is an objective moral evil, moral evil that
is external to our own feelings, if we can,
say that that is the case, then it must be that there's something transcendent, a
transcendent law, something above geography and time that was violated.
And if we can know that, then we can know that there is a transcendent moral lawgiver who
gave that law.
Premise three, we can know that there is objective evil, evil enough that the ripple
effect continues.
And therefore it must be that there was a transcendent law that the Nazis violated and
that that law therefore was uh the result of a lawgiver and that lawgiver had to be
outside of human beings.
Where did it come from if not from God is the conclusion therefore of moral argument
number two.
The argument of morality I think is a really, really strong argument.
I've heard people kind of fumble over various explanations in times past.
You know, the group decides what's right or it's just always known.
Everybody knows this is right or wrong.
And while that may or may not be true, it still has to come from somewhere.
And to use people, we do contradict each other all the time.
And you even mentioned, I think you said, how we can contradict ourselves in that at one
point you may think something's
or wrong and later you can change your mind so what was the standard if if there was one
And even simultaneously, we conflict with ourselves because here we're talking about
emotions.
And I can recall, uh, there's some documentaries that I, after, after realizing and
appreciating this argument, uh, I began looking for examples of, uh, what we sometimes
call mixed feelings among people.
And one good source was, a, some of these detective stories where they,
They'll talk about a murder or some atrocity that took place and then they'll interview
the victims.
I should say the victims uh loved ones.
uh then, and I have documented quotations from these people who say, for example, there
was one individual who was down, uh went to a river, uh which is where his loved one was
uh murdered.
and uh...
he said that he has mixed feelings when he goes on the one hand he feels a comfort on the
other hand he feels hara simultaneously because he's thinking of uh...
i he he he's he wants to be where where this person that he loved last and and that gives
him some comfort
but simultaneously thinks of the the murder and he struggles with this.
So there's an example even within the human psyche where there is a because we're dealing
with emotions.
You can have multiple emotions, even opposite emotions at the same time and about the same
situation.
And if we're going to base morality upon human feeling, human emotion, then uh
we have a contradiction that takes place and that therefore is not a reliable basis upon
which to determine what is moral and what is immoral.
That leads you to say, this is moral and that's immoral and somebody else says something
opposite and to reach his own.
Rather we are forced into acknowledging that therefore there must be an objective and
outside of human feeling basis upon which
morality is determined and where else but
yep and that's uh...
undeniable irrationally undeniable i should say people will deny and that you just cannot
especially have an argument like this and the nazis course provided great example of you
know we're forced and acknowledging there has to be a standard outside of humanity
right we talk about what what we sometimes talk about uh...
they committed crimes against humanity what do we mean by that and that gives rise to the
question going back to this moral argument number two premise three we said we can know
that there is an objective moral evil we can know that how do we know that that's a
wonderful segue into next episode
How can we know that there is objective moral evil?
We can give examples of atrocities and raise the question, now did they do something wrong
there?
then if we answer that yes, how do you know that they did something wrong?
That's what we want to press and that will lead us nicely into moral argument number three
next time.
Yes, for episode seven.
And so we really appreciate George sharing this with us.
Absolutely.
And we appreciate this opportunity to learn more about these arguments.
And again, the basis of this whole season is so that we may know how to answer those who
ask a reason of the hope that is in us.
And so that's what Christian apologetics is all about.
So we thank you for joining us on this episode.
And we look forward to being with you next time as we continue this discussion of
Christian apologetics.