• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Proof against the existence of God?

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I don't think you are saying that those who don't believe in God, are not human.
So if humans are superstitious animals, why isn't everyone a believer in gods?

All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.
Religious beliefs are just one manifestation of superstition. A rather common one.

Superstition manifests in many different ways. It is, at bottom, the recognition of false patterns.
This can go from the harmless trivial to the extra-ordinary.
From belief in gods to homeopathy and the more trivial.

Atheists aren't immune to it. Neither am I. No human is.

For example, just the other day I engaged in it also.

From time to time, we had a sewer smell in the house and it was a mystery where it came from.
At some point, I concluded that it occurred when it was raining. So we were searching for what would cause that smell while it rained. How rain could trigger the smell.

It turned out to be a stupid trivial thing in drain pipes. And that the smell got stronger while raining, was just a coincidence. It had nothing to do with it. It was a coincidental correlation and I falsely recognized it as a causal relation. It just so happened that the problem arose during a time where it was raining a lot. If it were the case during a dry spell in a hot summer, I might have falsely concluded that not enough running water was the problem...

That, in essence, is no different from "whenever I pray, X happens".

It's a form of superstition. The assumption of a causal link where there isn't any. The invention of a pattern where there isn't any. We humans want to believe, we want to think that we found "the answer".



The thing is, if you know about such psychological weaknesses, then you can guard against it.
But even then, you will fall for it sooner or later. Just like I did with the sewer smell.

It's essentially the cognition error known as the false positive. That, by itself, is a sufficient explanation for many false beliefs that humans hold.

From believing that homeopathy works, through horoscopes all the way to god beliefs.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.
Religious beliefs are just one manifestation of superstition. A rather common one.

Superstition manifests in many different ways. It is, at bottom, the recognition of false patterns.
This can go from the harmless trivial to the extra-ordinary.
From belief in gods to homeopathy and the more trivial.

Atheists aren't immune to it. Neither am I. No human is.

For example, just the other day I engaged in it also.

From time to time, we had a sewer smell in the house and it was a mystery where it came from.
At some point, I concluded that it occurred when it was raining. So we were searching for what would cause that smell while it rained. How rain could trigger the smell.

It turned out to be a stupid trivial thing in drain pipes. And that the smell got stronger while raining, was just a coincidence. It had nothing to do with it. It was a coincidental correlation and I falsely recognized it as a causal relation. It just so happened that the problem arose during a time where it was raining a lot. If it were the case during a dry spell in a hot summer, I might have falsely concluded that not enough running water was the problem...

That, in essence, is no different from "whenever I pray, X happens".

It's a form of superstition. The assumption of a causal link where there isn't any. The invention of a pattern where there isn't any. We humans want to believe, we want to think that we found "the answer".



The thing is, if you know about such psychological weaknesses, then you can guard against it.
But even then, you will fall for it sooner or later. Just like I did with the sewer smell.

It's essentially the cognition error known as the false positive. That, by itself, is a sufficient explanation for many false beliefs that humans hold.

From believing that homeopathy works, through horoscopes all the way to god beliefs.
So, you said all that to say, believing in God is not due to superstition in all cases, since humans "can know about such psychological weaknesses, then you can guard against it"?

Or are you saying that it is your belief that anyone who believes in God or gods, does not know about such psychological weaknesses, and therefore they do not guard against it?

Hence, only atheists have mastered the ability to know about such psychological weaknesses, and guard against it.
Is that what you are saying?
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
"God could exist in spite of all the suffering in the world since there is really no correlation. However, in light of the fact that God created a world wherein He knew there would be so much suffering, even though God does not directly cause it, I cannot believe that God is All-loving."

No, that is not my feeling part, that is my reasoning part. ;)
Of course, Baha'is have their apologetic, that suffering is good for us, but that does not cut the mustard for me.
That is just a way for believers to try to cover for God so they can still believe He is loving, since they need to feel loved.

How logical is it that a loving God would create a world that is a Storehouse of Suffering?
Baha'is do not use reason, they believe on emotions.

It’s because we cannot see the future or as Baha’u’llah puts it we cannot see the end in the beginning that we think this way.

Those who have entered the Valley of Knowledge see the end in the beginning.

Now if the lover could have looked ahead, he would have blessed the watchman at the start, and prayed on his behalf, and he would have seen that tyranny as justice; but since the end was veiled to him, he moaned and made his plaint in the beginning. Yet those who journey in the garden land of knowledge, because they see the end in the beginning, see peace in war and friendliness in anger.

Such is the state of the wayfarers in this Valley (Baha’u’llah)


The Valley of Knowledge - Beyond Foreignness

After my 6 suicide attempts and so much suffering I thank God because had I not gone through all that distress my soul would never have found its eternal home - it’s paradise.

What I interpreted to be pain, suffering and mental agony was in fact me being guided to find my hearts desire. It was a blessing in disguise which I only discovered when I reached the light at the end of the tunnel. Now I know that what occurred was to give me the greatest happiness and joy daily I had never dreamed possible. And I thank God with every breathe.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
1 If God exist we would live in the best possible world

I hear people say that a lot. I don't know why.
Why would it have to be like that?

Why can't god be a bored sadistic sociopath who creates a world where suffering is a guarantee just because he enjoys seeing that?

I think the "problem of evil" is a bad argument in that sense.
EVEN in context of a benevolent god. For the simple reason that for good to mean anything, bad has to exist also.

What is happiness, if there is no unhappiness to contrast it against?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Well there is no scientific evidence of a god...but science doesn't study gods, therefore science can't provide evidence of a god existing or not existing in anyway, so we are back to there is no scientific evidence of a god.
Its circular reasoning.

It's isnt "gods" as such that cannot be studied,
its anything that cannot be detected.

You as well could say science doesn't study
Batboys secret lab on the moon because
circular reasoning.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So, you said all that to say, believing in God is not due to superstition in all cases,

???

How did you conclude that?
I think I was rather clear in literally stating that god beliefs are a manifestation of superstition.

:confused:


since humans "can know about such psychological weaknesses, then you can guard against it"?

Or are you saying that it is your belief that anyone who believes in God or gods, does not know about such psychological weaknesses, and therefore they do not guard against it?

Did you even read the post?
I also said that even when you guard against it, that's no guarantee that you won't fall for it.
And I even gave myself as an example.

:confused:


Hence, only atheists have mastered the ability to know about such psychological weaknesses, and guard against it.
Is that what you are saying?

If you wish to know what I am saying, I suggest your read the post with a bit more attention.
All your questions are addressed in the post you are replying to. Literally.

Read that section again:

The thing is, if you know about such psychological weaknesses, then you can guard against it.
But even then, you will fall for it sooner or later.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I hear people say that a lot. I don't know why.
Why would it have to be like that?

HAVE is a strong Word, I am not saying that it has to be that way necessarily, but it seems probable …… why would a loving and all powerful God not do it?


Why can't god be a bored sadistic sociopath who creates a world where suffering is a guarantee just because he enjoys seeing that?
Granted this is only an argument against a specific type of God (all loving all powerful etc.)



I think the "problem of evil" is a bad argument in that sense.
EVEN in context of a benevolent god. For the simple reason that for good to mean anything, bad has to exist also.
What is happiness, if there is no unhappiness to contrast it against?

I am not saying that we shouldn’t have absolutely any “Bad”…… but it seems that we don’t live I the best possible world…… 6y ago I got stung by a bee, why did God allowed that suffering in me?...........it was not a big of a deal, nothing bad really happened, but that event seemed no to serve any purpose.

Perhaps the best version of the argument of evil is the argument form animal suffering, when it comes to humans one can speculate a whole bunch of metaphysical purposes for why God allows bad stuff to happen………. But why do animals suffer? What purpose could there be in a random rabbit in some forest that freezing to death in this moment

Obviously as a theist I could say that God works in mysterious ways, but that doesn’t changes the fact that the argument is a good probability argument that renders his existence less probable.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
What is the strongest or most compelling argument in your view for the non-existence of God or gods?

In many ways, it's not that complicated.

Like any argument, all you have to do is grant certain assumptions and the conclusions follow from the premises. In this case, it basically boils down to:

  • Define "existence" in a narrow sense and define "gods" in a narrow sense that make the two ideas directly incoherent with one another
That's... basically it. I do neither of these things, which is why I do not reject the gods and do not find arguments against them compelling. I do appreciate a well-grounded argument that cleanly presents its assumptions and traces those to the inevitable conclusions that follow, though.
 

Soandso

Well-Known Member
Speaking for myself, I'm not really interested in disproving the concept of gods. I'm not even really all that interested in disproving specific god claims. What does interest me, though, is testing these claims to see if they hold water - the results

Until a claim is presented that can be tested, a given assertion for the existence or non existence of gods doesn't really interest me outside of a cultural or anthropological context
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
???

How did you conclude that?
I think I was rather clear in literally stating that god beliefs are a manifestation of superstition.

:confused:

I asked a question. i did not make a syatement.

Did you even read the post?
I also said that even when you guard against it, that's no guarantee that you won't fall for it.
And I even gave myself as an example.

:confused:
I carefully read your post.
I don't think you answered my question in the previous post. Hence, I am trying to understand if there was an answer, somewhere in your response.

If you wish to know what I am saying, I suggest your read the post with a bit more attention.
All your questions are addressed in the post you are replying to. Literally.

Read that section again:

The thing is, if you know about such psychological weaknesses, then you can guard against it.
But even then, you will fall for it sooner or later.
So all humans do believe in gods then?
Atheism does not exist?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I asked a question. i did not make a syatement.


I carefully read your post.
I don't think you answered my question in the previous post. Hence, I am trying to understand if there was an answer, somewhere in your response.


So all humans do believe in gods then?
Atheism does not exist?

I'm sorry, I don't know how I can be any clearer.

It's almost as if you are doing your best to misunderstand. Almost.

:rolleyes:

To summarize:

- All humans are prone to superstition
- Religion is one manifestation of superstition.
- Not all manifestations of superstition are religion
- Knowing about the psychological weaknesses of humans, makes you capable of guarding against them
- You as a human will not succeed in guarding against superstition / cognition errors perfectly, sooner or later you will engage in such thinking errors, one way or the other.



Which part are you have trouble with understanding?
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
The most compelling argument to me is the fact that this existence can seemingly be explained naturally and without an intelligent designer. However, the only reason I believe in God is because things are very coincidental, both in the objective world and in my personal experience. I cannot prove that things are too coincidental that God is necessary, it is simply my opinion and largely faith-based.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I'm sorry, I don't know how I can be any clearer.

It's almost as if you are doing your best to misunderstand. Almost.

:rolleyes:

To summarize:

- All humans are prone to superstition
- Religion is one manifestation of superstition.
- Not all manifestations of superstition are religion
- Knowing about the psychological weaknesses of humans, makes you capable of guarding against them
- You as a human will not succeed in guarding against superstition / cognition errors perfectly, sooner or later you will engage in such thinking errors, one way or the other.



Which part are you have trouble with understanding?
Okay, so if I understand you...
all humans "are superstitious animals that tend to invent all kinds of magical "explanations" for things they don't understand".
Some invent gods. Others invent monsters under their bed. Others invent UFOs....
All of these however, are just imaginative things.
In that case, all atheist have a belief in some imaginative magical things, just that those things are not gods.

Am I understanding you correctly?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What is the strongest or most compelling argument in your view for the non-existence of God or gods?

I can't add much to Luis' answer. I don't make such arguments except regarding gods described incoherently, that is, with internal contradictions, as with the tri-omni god. That god can be ruled out. So can the one who said that it wants to be known, believed, loved and obeyed, and also created the "kinds" rather than a last universal common ancestor. That god has been ruled out by the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, which, if falsified, would reveal the presence of a deceptive, superhuman power and intelligence, not the deity of the Christian Bible.

I also reject claims about deities existing outside of time and space and being undetectable. That's the definition of the nonexistent. That describes everything every imagined that never existed. The whole idea of such deities existing, thinking, or acting all imply that they occupy time. So, all claims of supernaturalism are rejected. If it exists, it is part of nature, it exists somewhere at some time, and it is able to interact with other things existing in nature. The description of the supernatural is also incoherent for that reason.

And unfalsifiable claims about deity's are irrelevant, a form of apatheism. Claims about noninterventional gods like the deist god are irrelevant, or as some say, neither correct or incorrect, but rather, "not even wrong."

you can't actually capture an image of what is dynamic and really has no form. it has action but no actual definitive form because it is constantly in motion in any and all directions.

I would call that an incoherent statement as well. How can anything be said to exist and change through time (be dynamic), yet have no form or substance? What's changing and what does it mean to say that something is changing that is indistinguishable from the nonexistent, which also have no form or substance, but also aren't understood as changing.

If there was no bad, you would never experience good. You would be just existing. You just as well be a rock.

So how many times do you propose reminding people of how good it feels to not be suffering? I think I got that message in childhood. Yours is one of the attempts at explaining the theodicy problem that doesn't convince.

I don't see anything wrong with allowing suffering for good reason. We do that when we go to the doctor, or take our children to them... :D Especially when surgery is involved. I don't understand then, why you think the "concept of an All-loving God is highly problematic".

In world ruled by a tri-omni god, there should be no need for doctors, and no reason for suffering to exist. Physical suffering can be helpful in a godless universe, as can fear, but neither has a place in paradise. You probably know that Old Testament myth are often explanations for that suffering. The ancients understood that it need not exist if their god was as powerful as they thought, and would not exist unless it was just, meaning that it is always explained as God's wrath against a disobedient mankind. That's what the Garden story explains - why we don't live in paradise, why we sweat and toil, why we suffer in childbirth, and why we die. We had it coming. Several other stories explain what seems like undesirable aspects of reality in these terms, such as the Tower of babel story. Why did God make us unable to understand one another? Same thing as with the apple - he reached too far and needed a reality check.

I'm just pointing out here that the problem of suffering in the face of a tri-omni god was on the ancients' minds as well. They understood that an extra element needed to be inserted for the claim of omnibenevolence to stand - this is omnibenevolence because it's just.

if humans are superstitious animals, why isn't everyone a believer in gods?

Critical thinking allows one to escape that kind of thinking. All children and most adults fit your description, but se adults don't. And it need not be a belief in gods per se. I invented a religion as a young boy before I knew what that was (we were raised without gods or religion). I invented an invisible alien that I controlled my younger sister with for a few weeks. It only speaks to me, and could harm her. I got the idea from The Flintstones (The Great Gazoo, but less friendly). I wouldn't be able to do that to my sister now. She developed the necessary defense against indoctrination as well. She simply doesn't believe anything without sufficient evidentiary support, so no superstitions or gods for her, either.

What source do you trust for an accurate account to decide whether the Prophet is crazy, deluded, or a liar?

What difference does it make? I only care if he was correct about channeling a deity, and I have no reason to believe that did. What actually motivated him is of little interest. He might have been sincere and believed what he said whether mentally ill or not, or maybe he knew that he was making it up. The world is the same either way, so the answer is not useful. They ask similar questions about Trump, and my answer is the same. Does he believe he won that election (crazy, deluded)? Does he know he's lying (liar)? The law might care, since the crime charged might depend on that, but I don't care either way. Nothing of relevance in my life changes whatever the answer.

I don't thnik I can prove the Baha'i solution of the problem of evil in this environment.

There is no satisfactory answer to the theodicy problem for the critical thinker. It is a proof against the claim of the existence of a tri-omni deity.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Agnosticism whether skeptical or sympathetic to theism, appears more virtuous than hard line atheism.
Why, exactly? Are you agnostic about ogres and fairies? How about banshees or werewolves? Or maybe geese that lay eggs of pure gold, or Rumpelstiltskin, who can spin straw into gold?

You are not agnostic about any of those, because you've never seen any evidence of those -- which is also the case with gods, so why be agnostic about them?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
God could exist in spite of all the suffering in the world since there is really no correlation. However, in light of the fact that God created a world wherein He knew there would be so much suffering, even though God does not directly cause it, I cannot believe that God is All-loving.

Then you have no tri-omni paradox to explain. The god you believe in is logically possible. The version you rejected isn't.

I am sorry Duane but you cannot know suffering is beneficial, you just believe that because it is the Baha'i party line.

Agreed. And good for you for recognizing that. His beliefs appear to be more orthodox than your own. You're more if a freethinker. And that allows you to escape some of the problems caused by accepting the dogma that you have rejected. Your version of this deity is more indifferent than his, which relieves cognitive dissonance caused trying to explain to yourself and others why your suffering and theirs is actually a good thing - something he and all other Abrahamics offering an opinion on the matter feels a need to do. Hopefully, you don't feel that you deserve your suffering.

there is no reason to think that there would be proof if God exists since God would have to provide that proof

Nothing that exists has to provide evidence of its existence. It only requires that one be in the right place at the right time and using the aided or unaided senses. No cooperation is needed by the object or process detected.

if God wants our faith, as I believe, God will never provide proof.

You've comeback to this three times, and the last two times, I explained how insisting on being believed while allegedly withholding convincing evidence is a pathological trait in a person and a warning sign. It's going to be gaslighting most of the time. We saw it a few times in attempt to steal the election for Trump, when the likes of Giuliani and Trump were claiming to have evidence of voter fraud that they never possessed or produced. Over and again, people like Herschmann and Cippolone asked to see the evidence only to be told it existed, but wasn't ever shown.

I saw an interesting bit on the Internet I copied for you to read the next time you posted that comment about preferring to be believed without evidence:


.Ever since I got out of the hospital for chronic problems, my husband has been introducing me to some games every evening. One game used to be about doing things while my eyes are blindfolded - involving puzzles, ruby's cube, shaped objects… We'd take turns to do it just for entertainment.

Just a couple of days ago, he's been trying to get me to sign papers while wearing a blindfold. I refused to do it because he never lets me take a look at what I'm signing, neither before or after. He says that he was just trying to see if I could leave the same signature every time I sign, but I couldn't help feel uncomfortable. I told him I don't want to play this game unless and until he shows me the papers first; he said "never mind then" and stopped bringing it up.

Last night, he tried to convince me to give it a try and even volunteered to go first, I asked if he was going to show me what I was going to sign… [H]e made a face and said no, it's the rules and I should respect them. I refused and he kept on about how I keep acting worried and suspicious for no reason. He said I clearly don't trust him and he was hurt by finding that out now after everything we been through. We had an argument and I told him to drop it and not bring it up again, period. He was mad despite saying it was no big deal; he was obviously upset with me and kept talking about how I don't trust him and that I was out of line to assume or suspect anything from him like this. I might be paranoid, but I couldn't help it. I do think I was ta to him after he stood by my side when my own family didn't even visit.
Smart girl. This is obviously a red flag. Even if this is innocent, it's abusive.

Even if it is written in the Bible, how would that be proof to those reading it?

Why can you see that but not that the same words apply to your sacred writings? This is the question you were asked repeatedly in other threads when you claimed that those words were evidence of a god to you.

God would be taking away our free will and we could not choose good either.

The existence of the free will to do harm makes the world a worse place. It's understandable in the context of human evolution occurring in a godless universe, where prelinguistic primates evolved intellect and conscience, and find themselves in conflict between lower reptilian and mammalian centers with their survival instincts and impulses, and cortex giving them a contradictory message, but not in the world the Abrahamics describe.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I've often heard about the need to define what God is before any discussion can begin. To an extent, the sacred scriptures of the Abrahamic Faiths, provide a reasonably comprehensive narrative about who God is.
The difference in the narrative between the Old Testament and New testament are striking, and if not the classic good/evil twins scenario, it is either a God that suffers from a personality disoder, or has matured from an angry adolescent to a wise adult. But then we have the Quran and the God that has mixed feelings again, and then the Baha'i texts which don't clarify very much but does reveal that God is a bigot that prejudices against gays.

The texts do not progress. That is a serious flaw in the lineage of Abrahamic texts. The fact that Jews reject everything after the Old Testament is interesting. Christians reject the Quran and all other holy books and texts, including the Mormon Bible and the Urantia book. So it is all quite a set of divided tribes that offer no truth behind their decisions (except Jews) and no cohesive truth. Atheists like me just stand by watching the competition among believers.

The argument against a knowable God would be that God is so much greater than we are and is therefore beyond our comprehension.
In my experience this is a bad faith that claim comes out of the vast confusion and disagreement among the Abrahamic tribes, and the lack of consistncy between the many books. How can anyone take all the books literally and come away with a consistent and coherent concept of Yahweh? They can't. At best believers have to ipck and choose select bits and construct their personal vision of this God. So to say God is beyond comprehension aims to blame humans for the lack of consistency and lack of coherency in the texts.

Because Islam and Christianity is so large, there is a relative amount of agreement about who God is with each of these faith communities.
That's how Westboro Baptist Church out of Topeka, KS can assert strongly that God hates (gay people). The religious texts are so controdictory that any believer can pick and choose what they like and create a God out of the pieces. It's like every sect has their own Frankenstein Monster of a God. Islamic terrorists can hijack planes and fly them into buildings and be doing God's will. Christian missionaries can go into remote jungles at the risk of being killed to spread the promise of salvation. Evangelicals can claim God created the universe 6000 years ago. Baha'i insist that gays are to be condemned for being gay. Jews largely mind their own business but they have been targeted by other religions for death, and Yahweh stands by watching.

So if one starts from Christianity or Islam there is certainly a comprehensive view of God presented. Whether that God is plausible or not is a different matter.
Faith will justify anything, including ideas that are completely contrary to fact. To consider the lpausibility of any god existing is to fall back on the natural caacity for seeking truth via reason and fact. Theists have to face the temptation to believe and use reason, or set aside reason as a useful tool to discover truth.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
I would call that an incoherent statement as well. How can anything be said to exist and change through time (be dynamic), yet have no form or substance? What's changing and what does it mean to say that something is changing that is indistinguishable from the nonexistent, which also have no form or substance, but also aren't understood as changing.
infinites don't have a form, even if they are known to exist. i didn't state they aren't physical

not a leap of faith
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I don't know how I can be any clearer.

It's almost as if you are doing your best to misunderstand. Almost.

:rolleyes:

To summarize:

- All humans are prone to superstition
- Religion is one manifestation of superstition.
- Not all manifestations of superstition are religion
- Knowing about the psychological weaknesses of humans, makes you capable of guarding against them
- You as a human will not succeed in guarding against superstition / cognition errors perfectly, sooner or later you will engage in such thinking errors, one way or the other.



Which part are you have trouble with understanding?

- All humans are prone to superstition
- Religion is one manifestation of superstition.
WOW we have a natural tendency towards “religiosity” sounds like a prediction that theist would make and something “starange” and unexpected from a naturalist point of view…………why would an ancient monkey evolve this ability?....... why would natural selection, select superstitious monkeys ?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I'm guessing he's referring to the bazilion times that this god apparantly made himself known by performing miracles or having others perform miracles.

Like when +600.000 jews were supposedly stranded in the desert during exodus without food and then god had food drop from the sky.

Or when jesus made a blind man see or resurected the dead.

Or any of those other supposed supernatural events.
Who is to say those things ever took place? Just because they are in the Bible that does not mean they actually took place.
They are not KNOWN historical events.

As far as I am concerned, those are just stories that the Bible authors told to garner belief.
He could do such things today. And today, we also have the advantage of smartphones. Almost everyone has a video-camera at their disposal with but the push of a button.

It would be trivial to do, if he were real.
Even IF God did those things thousands of years ago, God does not need to do those today because people are different today, wiser and more intelligent, so they don't need supernatural events to believe in God, not most people.

Only atheists need those things but since they are only about 7% of the population, why should God perform miracles just for them? God does not even need anyone's belief.

It has never been and will never be about what God could do, it has always been and will always be about what God chooses to do. If God does not choose to do something it aint happening.
 
Top