A Conversation With An Atheist

Recently, I had a conversation with a self-professing atheist; let's call him, "Tom." As best I could tell from his profile, he is a medical doctor & if not, then at least very knowledgeable about biology, chemistry & anatomy. He joined a Christian forum that I am a member of where we often discuss creation science & how it glorifies God. He started posting & commenting there. He was very mannerly & seemingly kind but the purpose of his posts was to cast doubt on the existence of God, creation science & the veracity of the Bible. Many Christians on the forum were arguing science with him. Of course, this usually goes nowhere because the Christian will appeal to his version of the science & the atheist will appeal to his. The atheist often believes "creation science" is a pseudo-science & not even worth his time investigating.

I am nowhere near as educated as Tom. But the advantage I have (& every Christian has) is that we know God. Tom doesn't. He has denied God & actively suppresses the truth.

I've spent a fair amount of time attempting to witness to atheists & agnostics as well as encouraging my siblings in Christ to do the same. Most Christians are afraid of the Ph.D. atheists that are openly critical of Christianity. They think they are not smart enough to witness to such folks. They usually want to leave that up to other more educated believers. But this is not necessary. If you witness to an atheist the way the Bible instructs you to, it is not difficult & you do not have to be an expert in any field of science. Just a good dose of common sense will do; the common sense God gave you already.

I used to spend my time studying the sciences in order to prepare myself for witnessing to atheists. I would throw scientific pieces of evidence at the atheist (who are most often evolutionists) to show the Bible is accurate. These conversations are usually very long & difficult. They can get extremely technical & I've never had them go anywhere. I usually just got frustrated with having no success & would complain to God about it. I asked Him how this could be done? How can a man as uneducated as me, bear witness of the truth to seemingly very intelligent people who deny the existence of God?

It dawned on me. When we give evidence to someone we are asking them to take the facts & make a judgment call. Who do we give evidence to in a court of law? Answer: the judge. That answer made me take a step back. I was inadvertently putting God on trial (like I didn't believe in Him myself) & handing evidence to the professing unbeliever, making them judge over God! Yikes!

With that in mind read this passage of Scripture:

But God shows His anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. They know the truth about God because He has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities -- His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, the knew God, but they wouldn't worship Him as God or even give Him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools... Romans 1:18-22

 According to this passage, no one needs proof of God's existence. Why? Because "He has made it obvious to them." In fact, it says that God has done such a good job at making it obvious, that "they have no excuse for not knowing God." So if God has already made Himself obvious to them & they have no excuse, then they will be held accountable by God for what He has shown them & what they deny. This also means it is not my job to prove the existence of God, nor prove who He is. Why? Because He's already done that part.

I'd been doing it wrong. So I asked Him how to witness to an atheist. First He pointed out to me that atheists are Biblical fools:

The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. Psalm 14:1

OK. So how do you witness to a fool? He gave me this:

 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Proverbs 26:4-5

I used to think this just showed it was vain to argue with a fool. But instead, God is telling us how to witness to a fool (i.e. an atheist is a type of Biblical fool). God is saying not to start where the fool starts, nor reason as he reasons, lest you become like a fool too. Instead, we should hypothetically use the fool's starting point & reasoning to show how it ends in absurdity. This will expose his foolishness.

Here is the conversation. A few other Christians on the forum participated. One of them posted an article on the amazing complexity of energy in the living cell.

CHRISTIAN#1: I would be interested in Tom's take on this.

ME: Me too. You should do one on the ATP synthase motor itself. It is most certainly a chicken-egg problem as well as irreducibly complex.

TOM: Can't read this right now but I will say that eggs existed for millions of years before chickens did.

CHRISTIAN#1: checkmate. I fold :)

ME: Tom, that is false. God created chickens only thousands of years ago. He was eyewitness. He told us the truth.

TOM: Do we have any reasons for believing that? And, Greg, Nope. :P The two subunits that joined to create ATP synthase were both fully functional on their own beforehand. One was a DNA helicase and the other was a proton-powered motor like those that are part of bacterial flagella.

ME: Tom, yes, I do have reasons. Absolute truth.

TOM: So you have concluded that it is absolutely true that a specific deity specially created a specific subspecies of a specific species of junglefowl AND that this deity told "us" about this. That is fascinating. How did you arrive at such a conclusion?

ME: I said no such thing. God created birds. He created all things. This is something He has also shown you, which you actively suppress.

TOM: You you didn't actually mean that God specially created chickens themselves? Gotcha. I apologize for taking you too literally. I'm still interested to hear how you concluded this god created birds in general, though. You've also just upped the ante by claiming that he showed me this and that I am actively suppressing it (not sure what that means, exactly). Do I have amnesia? When was I shown this?

ME: God said He has made known His existence to every person through the things He created. Not only that, but He has shown you His nature as well. He has done this to such a degree that you will be held accountable for this knowledge. When you decided you didn't want Him in your knowledge then you suppressed this revelation and now you actively campaign against Him to justify your unbelief. Give me one proof that God does not exist and that molecules-to-man evolution has occurred. Just one thing that's not based on made-up stuff.

TOM: This god said and did all that? Where? When? And I never said that your 'no gods' exist, Greg. I don't believe that. I will positively say that "molecules-to-man" evolution indeed has never occurred because that concept doesn't make any sense. Evolution is a function of biodiversity. It only deals with living organisms.

ME: Does God exist?

TOM: Which one? Yahweh? El? I don't believe so. There's no evidence to that effect. Evidence actually indicates the opposite. A vague deistic or theistic concept of a god is of course, not associated with any such evidence. In short, I have no idea whether or not any gods exist. Nobody does. I think it very likely that specific gods do not exist, however (Thoth, Anubis, Hera, Zeus, Yahweh, Ba'al, Mithras, Poseidon, Hades, El, Amun, etc.).

ME: You are being coy. The God of the Bible. This is a Christian forum. The Almighty God. The Creator of all things. The One who has revealed Himself to you. The One who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.

TOM: Which god of the Bible? There are more than one. And I'm still waiting to hear when I was supposed to have met had this being revealed to me.

ME: Do you believe in Him?

TOM: Who?

ME: See above.

TOM: Both Yahweh and El are identified in the Bible in different places as the supreme god over other gods. I'm just asking for clarification.

ME: I don't believe you are because it won't change your answer. The Bible reveals one God. Elohim, El-Shaddai, El-Elyon, YHWH, etc. Please stop being coy. Surely you are not on a Christian forum and yet ignorant of Christianity.

TOM: El and Yahweh were considered to be different gods at one point. See Deuteronomy 32:8-9. "When Elyon apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; Yahweh's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share." It states plainly that El divided up people into nations according to how many gods there were (we know from other Ancient Near Eastern sources that this refers to his seventy sons). Israel is stated to be the nation that Yahweh was given.

ME: You are incorrect. But that's understandable since you deny God, you will also, therefore, be unable to understand the Bible. But you said you didn't know if any gods exist and that no one does. That's an absolute knowledge claim. How do you know that no one knows if God exists or not?

TOM: What am I incorrect about? You're asking how I know that nobody knows something? Okay, fine. Maybe somebody has some kind of secret knowledge they haven't shared with the rest of us or are simply unable to demonstrate. I amend my statement to "No evidence has ever been presented to the world suggesting anyone knows whether gods exist".

ME: You made another absolute knowledge claim. How do you know no evidence has ever been presented?

TOM: If such evidence had ever been presented to the world then I could Google it in a heartbeat. This is like me asking you to prove that nobody has ever presented evidence for the existence of orcs.

ME: You keep making absolute knowledge claims, Tom, but you have no way of knowing the things you say. How do you get truth without God? BTW, orcs don't exist.

TOM: What does the existence or nonexistence of any god have to do with our ability to understand what is true?

ME: Well you keep making absolute knowledge claims about how no one knows, or no evidence has ever been presented, etc. I just wanted to know how YOU get truth without God. I know how I get truth. I'm asking you how YOU know truth.

TOM: We arrive at what is true through objective observation. We apportion degrees of confidence to truth claims based on the quality of that evidence.

ME: How do you evaluate the observation? Logic? Induction? How can you trust your senses? Are you infallible?

TOM: No, of course, I am not infallible. How can I trust my senses, though? Are you asking how I don't know whether I'm in the Matrix or something like that? I don't. I can only assume that I'm not, but can through independent verification, demonstrate that my senses are reliable within the context of the world I inhabit, even if that world is a computer simulation. I'll ask you the same question. How do you know that your senses are reliable?

ME: So you don't know that you're not in the Matrix?

TOM: No, of course, I can't know that for certain. Neither can you.

ME: There you go again making absolute knowledge claims. I know absolutely that I'm not in the Matrix and I know absolutely that neither are you. But you don't by your own admission. You have given up knowledge. Why would you expect anybody here to ever take you seriously as you cast doubt on our God's existence or that evolution is true or that the Bible says this or that when by your own admission you may be a brain in a vat?

TOM: That's right. Because there is absolutely no way you could know that unless you are truly omniscient. Under every possible circumstance, you would only have your own experiences and could never prove that they weren't part of a simulation. Please explain how you could possibly know that you are not in the Matrix.

ME: I'm not omniscient but God is. God reveals truth. You asked earlier what belief in God has to do with our ability to know what is true. You just answered your own question. Because without God you can't know anything at all. Why? Because you are not omniscient.

TOM: And how do you know that the "truth" revealed to you is not just part of the simulation?

ME: Because God revealed it. The exact same way you know it (but actively suppress it). The all-knowing God is my presupposition. And then I discover that that presupposition works perfectly. Everything else ends in absurdity... Like not being able to know you are not a brain in a vat, for example.

TOM: I'm asking how you know that God revealing something to you is not part of the simulation, Greg. It's like you didn't even read my comment.

ME: I answered you. Are you now telling me that it is absolutely impossible for God to reveal absolute truth?

TOM: No, Greg. I never said anything like that. Nor have you told me how you know that God revealing something to you (through the Bible, an email, a fuzzy feeling, a dream, etc.) is not part of the simulation.

ME: I'll tell you again. In my worldview God reveals truth. That's how you know truth. That's how I know truth. I don't know how God does it. I just know He does. Do you not know what a presupposition is? God reveals Himself to ANYONE that humbles themselves. You can know Him too. And have absolute certainty that you are not a brain in a vat. In fact, He'll reveal to you that you are greatly loved and a creature of incredible value, beauty, and talent. Submit to Him on your knees tonight and you will find a peace that passes understanding like every Christian on this forum has. I've given you a way for you to actually experience HOW I know some things absolutely. You, on the other hand, have given up knowledge completely not even being able to discern whether you are a brain in a vat or not.

TOM: Do you understand the concept of circular reasoning?

ME: Yes. You use it all the time. Do you understand presupposition?

TOM: Yes, obviously. I already told you that I presuppose that I'm not in the Matrix. Just like you do. And just like you, although I presuppose that, I cannot be completely sure of it. That's why it is a presupposition. This is not hard to understand.

ME: I did not say I presupposed I was not a brain in a vat. I said I know absolutely I'm not a brain in a vat. So I beg your pardon, it is not just like you. So I ask you again, how do you get ANY truth without God? You have given up knowledge.

TOM: Holy crap, dude. The same way that you do. We arrive at what is true through objective observation. We apportion degrees of confidence to truth claims based on the quality of that evidence.

ME: Not true. You have not arrived at anything that is true because you aren't omniscient. You only have a degree of certainty. But you can't know how much certainty because, well, you aren't omniscient. You don't know how much you don't know. Is it possible that you could learn one more thing that could overthrow everything you think you know?

TOM: I have to be omniscient to know anything...??? I know with absolute certainty that 2+5=7. Nothing could make me not know that. Do you agree?

ME: I'm using YOUR worldview. You don't know your not a brain in a vat. So how do you know 100% that math works like you think? How do you know you're not crazy? Or mistaken? You don't. Not in your worldview. If you aren't omniscient then you could always learn one more thing. That one more thing could overthrow what you thought you knew. You said yourself, I would have to be omniscient to know I wasn't a brain in a vat. You keep making absolute knowledge claims without any way of knowing anything. Your epistemology is fatally flawed and viciously circular. You have given up knowledge. How did you come to the idea that knowledge is gained through objective observation? Did you objectively observe that object observation was the way to knowledge? Or is that just some arbitrarily chosen neural pathway in your evolved brain that you prefer?

TOM: Are you just messing with me? Math cannot work multiple ways. 2+5=7. Always. Even if the universe did not exist, two plus five would still equal seven. Please tell me you understand this.

ME: BTW, I'm getting sleepy so I'm going to bed. Thanks for the conversation. I hope you got something out of it. If you will humble yourself, God will prove many things to you. God bless you and good night. But... There you go making absolute knowledge claims again when you might be a brain in a vat. LOL... Good night, Tom.

TOM: Why would I not be able to make absolute knowledge claims if I was a brain in a vat? Are you even thinking about any of this or just reading from Sye or Eric's script?

CHRISTIAN#1: Very good, Greg. Tom's worldview can't allow for knowledge, yet he'll rant about his knowledge continually. And... He fails to understand this basic idea of logic.

TOM: Knowledge is a collection of facts one is aware of. I have a lot of knowledge about a lot of things. So what are you talking about? What do I misunderstand about logic?

ME: Yes, CHRISTIAN#1, it is like the atheist that says he has morals. Of course, he has morals. God even says so. But he has no way to justify why he has the ones he has except arbitrariness. By his own worldview, he is just arbitrarily telling us which neural pathways in his supposedly evolved brain he prefers. In the same manner, Tom makes knowledge claims without realizing he has undermined his own basis for any knowledge. He cannot discern, in his own words, any objective reality at all. He may be in a simulation! Totally absurd. But that's all you get when you kick God out of your knowledge. He will oblige you and let you live your absurd life filled with contradictions.

[At this point Tom posts what he thinks will throw doubt on Scripture regarding the scientific classification of insects. Other Christians initiate responses & then Tom & I begin talking again.

CHRISTIAN#1: Are you aware we don't and never have equated "kind" with "family"? We say they get close, but never an actual equivocation. So all you blew up is a strawman.

TOM: I have heard it repeated that "kind" roughly correlates to "family" most of the time. I'm not saying anyone has claimed a firm line in the sand there.

CHRISTIAN#1: Keyword: "ROUGHLY". Keep in mind that the current taxonomy is purely arbitrary. There is no actual scientific test for what should belong in a family or genus or phylum. It's just a grouping of how Carl Linnaeus saw fit to group them. Any other criteria would have been just as valid. The Biblical kind does have a scientific test: can it or is there documentation of them being able to breed together? If so, same kind. If not, they aren't.

TOM: Well, modern phylogenetics no longer uses those terms (family, phylum). Only domain, genus, and species still have any meaning.

CHRISTIAN#1: You are aware that the entire "tree of life" and Evolutionary common ancestry is built upon the previous classification chart right?

CHRISTIAN#2: Could be family. Could be down to the species or genus. Your total lack of understanding of creationism is appalling since you claim to have studied/ believed in it.

ME: Tom could be wrong about all this. He's not sure he's not plugged into the Matrix (his words, not mine).

CHRISTIAN#2: I know. As an atheist, there's no basis for logic and there's no reason to trust that your chemical reactions and neuronal discharges are reliable at all. Anything but the God of the Bible. His/ Her excuses for unbelief are hysterical and easily knocked down. But for someone whose desire is to reject Him, any reason is a good one even if it's stupid.

TOM: And you cannot be sure of that, either, Greg.

CHRISTIAN#2: ^haha. And we're supposed to take him seriously

TOM: Christian#2, how is there no basis for logic? I'm not sure I even follow what you mean by that? And when you talk about chemical actions in the brain are you asking how I know that the reality I perceive is actually real? I can't know that. I have to presuppose it, just like you and everyone else does as well.

ME: Tom says I can't be sure of that. How does he know?

TOM: Please just think about it, Greg. How could any individual in any kind of reality actually know for certain that they are not in a simulation? every single thing they could think of that might indicate their experience is actually real could always just be part of that simulation. You reading the Bible, you getting a warm fuzzy feeling you think is God, you having a dream about God... all of it might just be part of the Matrix. You would have no way of knowing. I understood this basic epistemology years ago when I was a Christian.

ME: Tom, if we give you evidence, how will you evaluate it? With the same sensory input that you admit yourself doesn't help you to know if you're plugged into the Matrix? Can you not see how your own worldview is absurd?

TOM: I can observe evidence in the context of the reality I inhabit, Greg, even if that reality is ultimately a computer simulation. Just like you can. This has nothing to do with my so-called "worldview". It is just the most basic of epistemological axioms. Nobody escapes it.

ME: You have no basis for knowing anything. You are nothing more than electrochemical reactions.

TOM: And neither do you... That doesn't mean we have no basis for knowing anything. We call this non-sequitur, my friend.

ME: Says you who could be a brain in a vat. You make absolute knowledge claims yet admit you have no basis for knowing they're true. Welcome to atheism... absurdity.

TOM: And you could be a brain in a vat as well! You have not given one single explanation for how you know you are not. And I have never said any such thing. I am perfectly capable of making absolute knowledge claims and knowing with 100% certainty that they are true. Here are some basic examples of things I am absolutely certain of: 1. I exist. 2. 1+1=2 3. There is no such thing as a square circle.

ME: Another absolute knowledge claim from someone who has no absolute knowledge of anything.

TOM: I have absolute knowledge of many things, which I have told you something like the twenty times now.

ME: Are you a brain in a vat or not?

TOM: I have no idea. How could I or anyone else possibly know that?

ME: I rest my case.

CHRISTIAN#3: Hi Tom, do you as an atheist believe that when you die you will "experience" "nothingness" or "deadness" if you will?

[At this point Tom posts an animated GIF of a man shrugging his shoulders... for me]

TOM: Christian#3, no, I don't believe that. I don't even know what "nothingness" or "deadness" is even supposed to mean.

CHRISTIAN#3: Tom, what do you believe you will experience at death?

TOM: The same thing I experienced thousands of years before I was born. I won't exist. Therefore it makes no sense to talk about me experiencing anything.

ME: Unless of course, you are wrong about that. Which, by your own admission, could be true. You have no way of knowing.

TOM: Unless I am wrong about what?? The fact that nobody can know whether or not they are not just a brain in a vat? No, I am not wrong about that and it is impossible for me to be wrong about that. For the hundredth time, please stop shamelessly lying about what I am saying.

ME: I'm not lying. I'm using your own words. You said I can't know I'm not a brain in a vat. That's an absolute knowledge claim. How do you know that? Are you omniscient? Infallible? And if you are neither then it is logically impossible for you to know whether I can know if I'm a brain in a vat or not.

TOM: You said, "You said I can't know I'm a brain in a vat. That's an absolute knowledge claim." Correct. You said, "How do you know that?" Because it is logically axiomatic. If you were a brain in a vat experiencing a highly-advanced simulation, you would have no way to tell. That's the whole idea of the hypothetical "brain in a vat" epistemological exercise. You said, "Are you omniscient? Infallible? And if you are neither then it is logically impossible for you to know whether I can know if I'm a brain in a vat or not." What...?! You're saying that if I don't know EVERYTHING then I can't know ANYTHING? Are you even thinking about the things you are saying?

ME: You said, "If you were a brain in a vat, experiencing a highly-advanced simulation, you would have no way to tell." How do you know that? You said, "You're saying that if I don't know EVERYTHING then I can't know ANYTHING?" That's what you indicated to me. Let's say I ask you if 2+2 always equals 5. Let's say, just for the sake of argument you answer, yes. You go through your entire life thinking that. Then suddenly you learn one thing more... you are a brain in a vat and the simulation was purposefully deceiving you the entire time. So because you spent your entire life in a simulation, you had no idea that 2+2 actually equaled 4 all the time. So logically you must be omniscient to know anything absolutely to a 100% accuracy. You would also have to be infallible. So, you don't know you're not a brain in a vat. You have zero basis for knowing ANYTHING. i.e. Your worldview is absurd.

TOM: You said, "You said, 'If you were a brain in a vat, experiencing a highly-advanced simulation, you would have no way to tell.' How do you know that?" Are you serious right now? BECAUSE THAT'S THE WHOLE FREAKING IDEA OF THE MATRIX/BRAIN IN A VAT HYPOTHETICAL. A manufactured reality that the inhabitants have no way of knowing is not actually real. You said, "You said, 'You're saying that if I don't know EVERYTHING then I can't know ANYTHING?' That's what you indicated to me." You are a liar. I never said anything remotely like that. You said, "Let's say I ask you if 2+2 always equals 5. Let's say, just for the sake of argument you answer, yes. You go through your entire life thinking that. Then suddenly you learn one thing more... you are a brain in a vat and the simulation was purposefully deceiving you the entire time. So because you spent your entire life in a simulation, you had no idea that 2+2 actually equaled 4 all the time." Two plus two equaling four has ****NOTHING**** to do with whether anyone is a brain in a vat or not. Even if the universe did not exist, two plus two would still equal four. Therefore it is *****NOT POSSIBLE***** for a simulation to deceive someone into thinking 2+2=5. Greg said, "So logically you must be omniscient to know anything absolutely to a 100% accuracy. You would also have to be infallible." NO. No no no no. Like I just said, 2+2=4. I can know that **FOR CERTAIN** even if I don't know everything. Get that through your skull. Holy crap, man.

ME: Did you not tell me I would have to be omniscient to know if I was a brain in a vat?

TOM: Yes! But I DID NOT SAY that you would have to be omniscient to know anything at all.

ME: But I do know I'm not a brain in a vat.

TOM: How do you know that?

ME: God reveals truth. He is omniscient. He is infallible. He says He created all things. He cannot lie.

TOM: Even if I were to accept that you literally saw God appear in front of you and verbally tell you a bunch of stuff, how would you know that wasn't just part of a simulation you're in?

ME: That's YOUR worldview, dude. I don't live in the absurd worldview you hold to.

TOM: I asked you a question, dude.

ME: I answered.

TOM: Umm.... No, you didn't? I asked specifically how you could know that your experience of having anything revealed by God wasn't part of a simulation.

ME: OK. I'll retype it. God reveals truth. He is omniscient. He is infallible. He says He created all things. He cannot lie. That's how I know.

[At this point Tom posts an animated GIF of the character Squidward (from Sponge Bob Square Pants) removing his brain and throwing it in the trash can]

TOM: IF YOU SAW GOD COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND DO A BUNCH OF MIRACLES RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, HOW WOULD YOU ****KNOW**** THAT IT WASN"T JUST PART OF A SIMULATION?

ME: See above.

TOM: You are the most dishonest person I have ever met on the Internet. And I would have told you that as a Christian as well.

ME: How do you know what honesty is? You could be a brain in a vat.

TOM: How the heck would that affect my ability to know what honesty is????????

CHRISTIAN#2: Atheism is a self-refuting worldview. That's obvious.

ME: Tom, lather, rinse, repeat. Are you actually talking? Am I real? Is that a keyboard you are typing on? By your own admission, you don't know what is objectively real.

TOM: Christian#2, atheism is not a worldview. It is literally nothing more than the non-acceptance of any claims to the existence of gods. Greg, I cannot PROVE that my keyboard is real. Neither can you. That does not mean I cannot know anything, for the billionth time.

CHRISTIAN#2: Tom hates God and wants to spread that around. He's got no actual evidence-based rationale for that (although he'll say he does and give lame, totally explained for hundreds of years nonsensical reasons). He's delusional and can't even see how absurd his own worldview is (because that would require he change it). Tom, not a worldview? You must be joking.

TOM: Christian#2, what is absurd about my so-called "worldview"? Be specific. If I need to correct myself on anything, I want to do that.

CHRISTIAN#2: Right. It's been explained. Perhaps Greg was talking over your head.

ME: Tom says, "Neither can you." That's your world of absurdity, not mine. I know what's objectively real because God reveals truth. I happen to agree with Him. You don't. You'd rather accept the absurdity of possibly being in a simulation than accept the reality He has shown you. You have to suppress the truth in order to maintain your absurdity. That's why I keep pointing it out to you. We are not in the same boat. We don't have common starting points either. You hate God. I don't. You call Him a liar. I refuse to. It is actually very simple.

CHRISTIAN#2: Tom, Greg has taken you to school repeatedly and the funny thing is you have absolutely no idea.

CHRISTIAN#4: None so blind than he that refuses to see. Tom can't even see his own contradiction.

CHRISTIAN#3: Christian#4, yes and there really are no contradictions when one's source of authority/logic is subjectively based as is Tom's. I'll be praying for him

[Tom disappears.]