Ep 28 – Does God Exist? Part 2

      Comments Off on Ep 28 – Does God Exist? Part 2


In episode 27, I went over four classical arguments for the existence of God and their refutations from the book Irreligion by John Allen Paulos.  In this episode I am going to look at four subjective arguments for the existence of God and their refutations along with my own interpretation and explanations.  I feel it is important for religious critics to know and understand these arguments because they are some of the most commonly used by theist and they may help you win a few arguments from time to time.  So put on your thinking cap, sit back and get ready to be schooled.  This is C-Webb’s Sunday School!

What is an anecdote?

As I stated earlier, the four arguments I’m going to look at are subjective arguments and they are: The Argument from Coincidence, The Argument from Prophecy, The Argument for Subjectivity and The Argument from Interventions.  Before we get into the actual arguments, I want to discuss anecdotal evidence because it plays an important role in understanding these arguments.

Anecdotal Evidence [link]:

You are going to notice most of these arguments fall within the realm of anecdotal evidence which are arguments from personal experience.  In the realm of logic, we call this a fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the “person who” fallacy.  You may recognize it as such: “I know a person who….” Or “I know of a case where….” Or the religious will say “I know God is real because I feel his presence.” Or people who believe in the paranormal will say “I know what I saw and I saw a ghost!”  I am not going to go out of my way and claim these people didn’t experience something, there is no possible way for me to conclude that they didn’t feel or see what they thought they saw or felt.  I believe that they believe they saw or felt something. That doesn’t mean I accept their claims.  I believe people with schizophrenia hear voices but I also know those voices are coming from within their own head, not the TV or radio.  I believe people can see ghost or think they saw a ghost but I don’t accept that as evidence of ghost being real.  I believe people feel something when they pray or meditate but I don’t accept the claim that it is their God reaching out and touching them.  This is a difficult position because we truly can’t know someone else’s experiences.  So what do we do to combat this?

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge [link].  In order for a method to be termed scientific, it must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subjected to specific principles of reasoning.  The Oxford English Dictionary describes the scientific method as “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”  Scientist seek understanding through letting reality speak for itself and supporting a theory when the theory’s predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.

Anecdotal evidence, on the other hand, is not scientific.  It typically relies on a small sample size and because of this, there is a larger chance for cherry-picking and it cannot be generalized, which is when you take the results and apply them to a broader population.  Anecdotal evidence is usually in direct contrast to the scientific method because by its very nature, you cannot examine anecdotal claims using the scientific method.  In science, we try to understand how or what happened by collecting evidence to support a claim.  You may use anecdotal evidence as a motivating factor to investigate something, but you can’t use it as actual evidence.  This type of evidence does not represent a typical experience because of human cognitive biases.  In order for anecdotal evidence to be considered typical, it would require statistically significant evidence and it fails to do this.  Science defines anecdotal evidence as:

  • Information that is not based on facts or careful study
  • Reports or observations usually by unscientific observers
  • Casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis
  • Information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically

However, there are some forms of scientific anecdotal evidence and these are called case studies and are often used in psychologically.  Case studies are reports of small groups or individuals recorded by a trained professional.  These case studies are still subjected to peer review and can be used to help further scientific study but they are rarely seen as definitive scientific evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is the antithesis of scientific evidence.  As we move through these arguments, I will expand in more detail how anecdotal evidence applies and you will see how unreliable and unscientific it really is and how you can use it to pretty much prove anything, even the existence of a god.

The Argument from Coincidence

I would like to say that attributing random events to some larger cosmic cause is irrational but what if millions upon millions of people believe this?  Does it make it rational because some many people believe it?  “Everything happens for a reason” is a pet peeve of mine when I hear people say it and I am sure most of us have heard some variation of it at some point in time.  Hell, I’ve said it a few times before.  I try not to anymore but that doesn’t mean I don’t think it.  I try to find causes to why things are happening but I know the limits of my own perceptions.  Post hoc ergo proctor hoc which means “after this, therefore because of this.”  This is a logical fallacy which states “since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one [link].”  In science it takes an enormous amount of evidence and testing to determine causation but in our daily lives, we just simply draw connections to try to explain events, usually large events but it’s a cognitive error.  A coincidence is the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection.  This kind of fallacious thinking is often used to prove the existence of a god and Professor Paulos outlines it like this:

  1. All these remarkable events occurring at the same time can’t be an accident.
  2. There must be some reason for their coincidence.
  3. That reason is God.
  4. Therefore God exists [Paulos, John Allen (2007-12-26). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 52). Hill and Wang. Kindle Edition.]

We see this almost every day in our lives when two seemingly opposite people meet, fall in love and get married and we say they were meant to be.  The question I would like to ask for believers is this: If God set these two people up, does that mean he short circuited their free will?  If you boil it down to its bare bones, it’s really an argument between determinism and free will, something philosophers have been arguing over for centuries.  This topic is too long and complicated to get into here but the basis of these two arguments are this:

  • Determinism says that occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural law. Noticed I didn’t say supernatural, because with an untested and unverified supernatural being, all bets are off.
  • Free will is the ability to make choices unconstrained by certain factors.  It doesn’t ignore past experiences but it’s often said that when we make a choice, we choose from an infinite number of possible outcomes.

I tend to fall somewhere in between absolute Free Will and absolute Determinism.  This is relevant to this topics because the Argument from Coincidence is essentially saying we don’t have a choice in why things happen.  God has a plan.  What does this say about Free Will?

We also look for patterns, again, usually after the fact.  Professor Paulos uses September 11th as an example:

  • First, there were the amateur numerologists online and elsewhere who began by pointing out that September 11 is written 9/ 11, the telephone code for emergencies. Moreover, the sum of the digits in 9/ 11 (9 + 1 + 1) is 11, September 11 is the 254th day of the year, the sum of 2, 5, and 4 is 11, and after September 11 there remain 111 days in the year. Stretching things even more, they noted that the twin towers of the WTC looked like the number 11, that the flight number of the first plane to hit the towers was 11, and that various significant phrases, including “New York City,” “Afghanistan,” and “the Pentagon,” have 11 letters [Paulos, John Allen (2007-12-26). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (pp. 52-53). Hill and Wang. Kindle Edition.]

We are also drawn to the sensational.  When big, meaningful events happen in our lives, there is usually a strong emotional attachment.  This strong emotional attachment clouds our judgment of events, it doesn’t allow us to carefully analyze the situation.  The idea of Karma is good example of this.  We hope that people who do terrible things are punished and those that do good are rewarded whether in this life or the next.  The sheer amount of data in this world, the many ways that numbers, events, organizations and even ourselves are linked together makes it almost impossible that there are not meaningless coincidences.  I have said this before but it’s worth repeating here: we remember the hits and ignore the misses.  Again, another error in cognition and be leery of anyone who says they don’t fall victim to this.  We can pick and choose any event in the past and associate it with our current situation.  I am not saying that what happens in the past doesn’t influence our future but to associate those past events with some greater cosmic meaning is over emphasizing your significance.  We all want our lives to mean something, to feel important.  We like the idea that something or someone is in control but what we find ideal and what reality shows fails to take notice of our present situation.  Professor Paulos says:

  • The most amazing coincidence imaginable would be the complete absence of all coincidences

The Argument from Prophecy

We can take prophecy to mean several different things such as a prediction of something to come true but when we use it in the context of a god and religion, it tends to focus on prophets declaring the divine will and purpose of a god.  At its core, a prophecy is just a prediction.  It doesn’t necessarily follow that said prediction has to come true.  The Bible is full of stories of prophets declaring God’s will to destroy them because they have turned away from God.  The prophet usually gives the people a chance to turn away from their wickedness and turn back to God thus negating the previous prophecy.  We also see God following through on His promises and wiping out entire nations, thus the prophecy is proven true or would appear to be proven true.  The argument from prophecy goes like this:

  1. A holy book makes prophecies.
  2. The same book or adherents of it report that these prophecies have come true.
  3. The book is unquestionable and asserts that God exists.
  4. Therefore God exists [Paulos, John Allen (2007-12-26). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 61). Hill and Wang. Kindle Edition.]

If a prophecy is nothing more than a prediction, where else can we see predications being made and coming true?  No not psychics, physics is one such place.  Science is based on making predications and testing the reliability of said predications.  Predications made using physics are not always correct but we can make predications based on what physics will do with enough accuracy to send rockets to the moon and then bring them back or send SUV size rovers to Mars.  Does this mean physics has access to some divine authority or that physicist should be worshiped as some type of prophet?  What really pisses me off about prophecies is that they never are clear or accurate enough before the predicated event to give us enough foreknowledge to stop or delay the event.  We never hear a psychic or prophet say that on this date and time this event will happen and when these people do make these predications and the date and time passes, we laugh at them.  What you do see is post hoc rationalizations.  People will look back at an event and find evidence of a predications from psychics or holy books or Nostradamus.  A lot of good that does anyone.  Nostradamus predicated the September 11th attacks but we only found out about it after the attacks occurred.  This is sometimes called the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.  This fallacy is present itself like this:

  • A sharpshooter aims and fires several rounds at the side of the barn.  After which he walks to the barn and draws a target and bulls eye around where his shots landed and declares he just hit a bull’s eye.

Another example is the Bible Code.  There is no difference between the people who study the Bible Code, which is a practice of using an algorithm to search each letter in the Bible at specific intervals to find hidden messages or people who study the writings of Nostradamus.  The both engage in this type of fallacy.  Even the New Testament writers actively engaged in scouring the Old Testament looking for prophecies of Jesus’s death and resurrection.  They had this guy Jesus who they followed and looked for justification for his ministry in the Old Testament.  How is this any different than Nostradamus or the Bible Code?  I can hear the apologist now: “The Bible is divinely inspired and there are several different meaning for every passage.”  But they fail to see how this looks to a non-believer.  What we call post hoc rationalization, they call divine inspiration.  They’ll use a sophisticated form a special pleading and say that one only needs to allow God into their lives and they can finally see the truth of the scriptures.

The argument from prophecy is just a special case of the argument from presupposition.  Anyone who tries to provide evidence for the existence of a god, presupposes that said god exist.  Apologist will say that there is evidence for the Christian God because they know the Christian God to exist [link].  The argument from prophecy uses this type of reasoning because the apologist presupposes the existence of their god and therefore the prophecies contained in the Bible is proof of their god’s existence.  It can also be presented like this:

  1. In presenting its divine narrative, a holy book presupposes God exists.
  2. People read and come to accept the narrative.
  3. The narrative must be true.
  4. Therefore God exists [Paulos, John Allen (2007-12-26). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 61). Hill and Wang. Kindle Edition.]

By looking at the prophecies of the Bible and using those to prove God exists works out really well if you presuppose the god of the Bible exist but what if you don’t?  What if fail to accept the Bible as a historical account of the one true god?  What if you are skeptical of its claims?  An apologist would say that you have not been touched by the Holy Spirit or you have not felt the presence of God and once you do, the Bible will make sense and you will see it as evidence for God’s existence.  Duh!  I can say this for Islam on the Qur’an or any other holy book.  Once I believe in the main character, obviously I’ll accept the evidence presented in its holy book.  I will grant that there are theologians that study the meaning within the Bible and scholars that look at each word in their original language and context but this does little in proving the God of the Bible.  What it does prove is that someone wrote the words in some language at some point in time in history and some other people gleamed meaning from the arrangements of these words and also wrote those down for others to study.  The Hebrew people wrote their personal history form their perspective.  The Greeks and 1st century Jews wrote the history of Jesus from their perspective.  Century after century people have studied these texts, ascribed meaning, changed dogma and interpretations over and over again but unless you presuppose that the god of the Bible exist, it means very little in the way of definitive proof for His existence.  I need a little more than “the Bible says it’s true!” 

The Argument from Subjectivity

I’ve heard a Christian apologist say that the experience of feeling God’s presence is enough evidence anyone would need.  They say that once you let God into your life, every argument for God’s existence will magically make sense.  This goes back earlier to when I talked about anecdotal evidence at the beginning of this episode.  Another form of anecdote is the idea of subjectivity which is a condition of being a subject with unique experiences, consciousness [link], perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.  Subjectivity is usually contrasted with objectivity which is the idea of seeing things for what they really are from the standpoint free from human perceptions and influences as well as free from human cultural interventions, past experiences and other belief systems [link].  In science, researchers strive for objectivity, well at least the ones that are intellectually honest but as with all human interactions, objectivity is very hard and subjectivity can and does creep back in.  The argument from subjectivity sounds like this:

  1. People feel in the pit of their stomach that there is a God.
  2. They sometimes dress up this feeling with any number of unrelated, irrelevant, and unfalsifiable banalities and make a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” to conclude that God exists.
  3. Therefore God exists [Paulos, John Allen (2007-12-26). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 75). Hill and Wang. Kindle Edition.]

You may also hear this as the argument from personal experience.  Mormons use this approach when they tell you to pray for God to come into your life and as soon as you feel that burning in your bosom that means God was entered you, metaphorically speaking of course!  I bet you can produce that feeling right now.  Go ahead and give it a try but instead of praying to God, pray to something or someone else.  See what happens. Another form is argument takes is the the argument from fervency:

  1. I believe so fervently in God.
  2. This, that, and a zillion other experiences have led to my total and absolute faith in God.
  3. Therefore God exists [Paulos, John Allen (2007-12-26). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 76). Hill and Wang. Kindle Edition.]

I’ll hear apologist use this argument too.  They’ll say that so many people the world over believe in God and all of those people cannot be wrong or they’ll say people died for Jesus and why would anyone die for something that isn’t true?  I can ask: why would Muslim extremist blow themselves up?  According to this logic, it must mean the Qur’an is true and Allah is real.  I heard one apologist say that he doesn’t discount other god’s or people’s experiences of these other god’s.  He said that they are false gods but their experiences are real.  Essentially he is saying that they are demons.  So according to him, one religious experience is the same as the next, the source is just different.  So instead of positing other gods or demons, why not the less fanciful explanation and say this is a product of human physiology and psychology?  Why introduce complicated god and demon hierarchies?  The answer is simple, if the Christian apologist claims that the experiences of different religious groups have a natural cause, then they must accept that their experiences of God and Jesus can also have a natural cause.

Another argument I like is the idea that God uses our natural bodies to elicit a supernatural response.  The logic goes like this:

  1. Our bodies are made of atoms
  2. Our atoms have been arrange by God to form our bodies
  3. God created our bodies
  4. God can manipulate our bodies in a seemingly natural way
  5. Therefore God exist

You may want to shout back and say PROVE IT!  The typical response I have heard is “it’s logically consistent.”  While that may be true and it may be true for all these arguments but is it probable?  You can be logically consistent with any outrageous belief but that doesn’t make it true.  From the outset of all these arguments, the apologist presupposes their god exist.  Question that very first existence claim, the whole argument falls apart no matter how logically consistent it is.

Let’s round out this argument with one more example and it’s called the argument from emptiness:

  1. People wonder if this is all there is and ask, “What will any of my concerns matter in one thousand years?”
  2. They find this prospect so depressing that they decide there must be something more.
  3. This something more they call God.
  4. Therefore God exists [Paulos, John Allen (2007-12-26). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 76). Hill and Wang. Kindle Edition.]

I am sure we’ve all experienced this feeling before.  We look at our place in the universe and wonder why we’re here and where we’re going?  Such vast empty space for such a small pale blue dot circling an insignificant star.  There has to be some higher purpose to all this.  Some deeper meaning.  This life, the short time we are here, cannot be all there is.  In the vast ocean of the universe, we are a mere drop.  You can feel this need of the supernatural, this pull towards the divine but moving from feelings to asserting is another matter.  We can have these deep feelings of wanting, of needing and of belonging but it doesn’t make the divine true or a god real.  What drives one person to the divine could drive another to the perverse.  Science doesn’t stop at the god notion, it goes beyond that.  History shows we are a curious species.  We explore even to the determent of ourselves and our fellow man.  The experience of emptiness is a strong motivator and I do not doubt that people feel their god, that they have honest, emotional reactions to the idea of their god, I am not questioning that.  The subjective feeling a believer has is very convincing to the believer but this doesn’t translate into evidence for an atheist or even agnostic.

Apologist often miss this point entirely.  They will claim that the evidence from history, the Bible and personal experience leads them to believe in Jesus.  Usually they we start with history and say that Jesus was a historical person then they will move to asserting that both the Old and New Testament are accurate historical documents and from there they assert that Jesus died on the cross and then was resurrected and finally they say God entered into their lives and changed them.  Or they will start with having God in their lives already and then working backwards claiming Jesus was crucified and resurrected, that the Bible is an accurate historical document and so on and so forth.  Is it coincidence that the vast majority of Biblical scholars are Christians with only a handful being non-believers?  Can you be a Christian and believe the Bible to be accurate, believe in a historical Jesus but not in the resurrection?  Do you have to make the final leap?  The apologist will say that once you believe all the evidence, you have no choice to make that leap and if you fail to do so, it’s out of stubbornness.  What these subjective arguments all suggest is that hard evidence can only take you so far, feelings have to take you the rest of the way.  I guess that is why they call it a leap of faith. 

The Argument from Interventions

The fourth and final argument is the argument from interventions and it goes a little something like this:

  1. Whether brought about by prayer or taking place spontaneously, a miracle occurs.
  2. This is evidence of a divine intervention.
  3. Therefore God exists [Paulos, John Allen (2007-12-26). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (pp. 83-84). Hill and Wang. Kindle Edition]

A child is cured of cancer without medical intervention.  A plane crashes but no one is killed.  A boat sinks but one small child survives and floats safely to shore.  These could be random events or they could be the work of divine intervention.  Theist and specifically Christians look for miracles as confirmation of their beliefs.  News headlines use the word miracle arbitrarily.  If you describe a miracle as a very unlikely event, then miracles happen every day.  Lottery winners, Bingo winners, poker players etc…these are all low probability events but people still win.  So are these miracles?  Are modern medicine, cell phones and fuel efficient cars miracles?  I would say no, these are not miracles.  A miracle has to meet a certain criteria and is often described as such: a miraculous event is not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency [link].

When I think of miracle stories, I think of natural disasters.  These disasters are plagued with so called miraculous events.  The media boast of a handful of people surviving a tsunami or earthquake.  A tornado will rip through a neighborhood and destroy every house but one and the owners of that house will call it a miracle that their house was saved.  What about the hundreds and thousands of people that died from a tsunami or earthquake or the rest of the houses that weren’t so lucky?  Do you think that those people think miracle happened?  God has a pretty awesome PR person.  “Look, I know I sent this horrible disaster that killed hundreds of thousands of people but hey, I did save a couple of babies, that has to count for something right?”  No one ever blames God for the actual disaster but He gets all the credit for saving a handful of people.  It seems like the miracle is in the eye of the beholder.  Parents all over this world pray to have their sick children healed but for most their prayers are never answered.  Diseases go into spontaneous remission all the time and the odds on bet is that one of those times, the remission will be preceded by a prayer.  Did the prayer for intervention motivate God to cure this one child’s disease?  What did the other parents do wrong that God choose to ignore their prayers?

God once again is off the hook because His believers will simply say that it is God’s will or God has a plan or God does answer prayers and sometimes it’s no.  Give me a break.  This is clearly a cognitive coping mechanism, most people will do anything to hold onto their beliefs even if it means lying to themselves with these empty platitudes.  What about the people that do get their prayers answered or survived a disaster, why are they more righteous and worthy of God’s attention?  These are tough questions believers have to ask and once they do, they’ll realize that there is no rhyme or reason or some benevolent being guiding their fate.  It’s all random chance.  You were born where and when you were not because of divine providence but by simply random chance, the accident of birth.



Another response I hear from theist is that God cannot possible answer every prayer because people wouldn’t be grateful anymore.  Really?  Let’s try it and see what happens.  If God is capable of creating a world without pain and suffering and still maintain free will in the future, ie: heaven, why couldn’t He have done it in the first place?  If this is the best possible world God could create, it assumes God has some kind of restrictions and if this is true, the God most people worship cannot exist and cannot intervene within our physical world.  This means are then limits on God’s power.  So why even worship Him?

I’ll often hear atheist and theist argue back and forth about what a miracle is and what would it take for an atheist to believe a miracle has taken place.  If you hold a naturalistic view of the world, miracles by definition, cannot occur.  Naturalist cannot be convinced of the miraculous.  Often time’s these arguments boil down to a theist positing a miraculous claim and then an atheist coming up with a naturalistic explanation.  Jesus rose from the dead, says the theist.  Not necessarily, the body could have been stolen or he wasn’t fully dead, replies that atheist.  Both of these arguments are plausible but the probable answer is that neither of these events occurred.  We don’t need to come up with a naturalistic explanation for every supposed miraclous claim.  We can simply say said event did not happen.  The laws of nature don’t allow for it.  A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.  It’s either divine intervention which makes the laws of nature arbitrary or maybe, just maybe we don’t yet completely understand the laws of nature as well as we thought we did.  Professor Paulos states it like this:

  • “Whatever evidence exists that a certain phenomenon miraculously violates a particular scientific law is evidence as well that the scientific law in question is simply wrong [Paulos, John Allen (2007-12-26). Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up (p. 88). Hill and Wang. Kindle Edition.]”

Our knowledge of the universe if growing but gaps still occur.  Theist posit of God within those gaps but as science and knowledge progresses, the gaps shift or close and God goes running off to hide somewhere else.  Can I ever be convinced of the miraculous?  No because science says a man cannot be dead for three days and then come back to life.  Am I being closed minded?  No, I’m not.  Again, from a naturalistic worldview, miracles cannot happen.  David Hume sums this up as follows:

  • “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined [link].”


This wraps up part two of this three part series on the arguments for God.  I touched on these topics briefly and each topic could warrant an entire episode but having a base understanding of these arguments can help in your arguments with theist.  Unless you are arguing with a seasoned apologist, you can take the knowledge in this podcast and use it to destroy any laypersons arguments for a god.  Just be gentle.  We want to show people the error in their thinking, not humiliate them.  These beliefs are tied to personal identity and when you attack these beliefs, you are attacking the individual.  The best way to engage is to ask leading questions, listen and respond with more questions.  Lead the believer to your conclusions.  It takes time and practice but the end result is longer lasting then just berating the person.  Chances are, if you guide the believer to your conclusions, when they have more questions, they’ll be more inclined to follow-up with you.

I am planning to do a third part on probability and the existence of God but I am going to save that for a later date.  I don’t want to get burnt out by doing on topic for an extended period of time.  I have other great shows planned such as the story in Joshua and the Sun standing still, the sociology of ancient Palestine during the time of Jesus, the historical evidence for Jesus, did Christians steal the Jesus idea from other religions, AA and God and the numerous Christian sects that sprang up during the first century following Jesus’s crucifixion.  Plus I want to respond to noted twitter apologist Jared Orme from Conversion Radio.  So fear not dear listeners, I have plenty of topics and motivation to carry on, now I just have to find the time.  Speaking of time, I wish I was able to do this full time but I have a family to shelter and feed.  If any of my listeners are wealthy and would like to make a large cash donation year to year to allow me to do this fulltime, I’d be happy to accept but if you want to donate even a few dollars, I setup monthly micro-payments on the sites main page for $2 a month but don’t think of it as a requirement.  What am I going to do, ban you to hell for eternity because you didn’t donate?  I don’t have that power….yet.  If you want to support that show in other ways, like the Facebook page, follow me on twitter and tell your friends and please feel free to contact me by using the contact page on the site or by sending your emails to cwebb619@gmail.com.  Once again, thank you all for listening and I’ll see you here next time for another C-Webb’s Sunday School.