Questions about G-d: Who Made G-d?

 

I made a short series of videos considering questions about G-d that I have noticed get asked from time to time. Below is a rewriting based on the script for the first video, followed by the video itself.

I hardly know what to say about this question, but it does come up sometimes, and it needs a response.  It seems to arise in response to cosmological arguments for the existence of G-d. The response “Who made G-d then?” seems to be a sort of “Gotcha!” response.  Or maybe it’s an honest question.

Either way, it’s based on a serious misunderstanding of arguments like this. These arguments don’t say that everything needs a cause.  They say that things that do need a cause have one.

G-d does not need a cause.  G-d is the Uncaused Cause, the Unmoved Mover, the Uncreated Creator.

Now you can say that you think there is no such thing as an Uncaused Cause, and hopefully explain why you think that. But there’s no point asking who created the Uncreated Creator or who caused the Uncaused Cause.  It’s a little bit like asking why 3 is a bigger number than 17, or who put all the right angles in a circle.

The first thing is just to understand what Christians (or other classical theists) are talking about when we talk about G-d as the Uncaused Cause.  One good way of putting this is: Most things are caused, and everything that’s caused needs an explanation, and there is no explanation unless there is something that is not caused.

Another good way of putting it is: Everything needs an explanation.  Most things need something else to explain them, but the First Cause or the Uncaused Cause is His own explanation.

And the second thing is to understand why we think this way.  In terms of biblical history and ancient literature, the idea of G-d as the Uncreated Creator comes originally from the Torah.  “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth.” G-d creates by speaking.  He has that kind of power.  “Let there be light.  And there was light.”  He is not creating out of any preexisting matter, like the gods in creation myths of the polytheistic religions of the cultures by which the ancient Hebrews were surrounded.

And He is not Himself a being who comes with a past, a beginning, a backstory like the gods of those creation myths tend to.

And in terms of philosophy, or philosophical theology, there are only a few ways we could possibly try to explain cause and effect.

There are chains of causality—me, my parents, their parents, and so on.  We could say that these chains go on infinitely into the unlimited past. But then there’s no explanation for anything, because every explanation has to come from somewhere, and it can’t come from anywhere if it never begins anywhere. My parents can’t explain me unless they are explained.  If there is no beginning to the chain of cause and effect, nothing is explained: Every supposed explanation is based on the link in the chain before it, but ultimately based on nothing at all, so that nothing is actually explained.

Let me try another way of saying this: My parents cannot explain me unless they are explained, and they cannot be explained unless their parents are explained, and so on. Nothing in a chain of cause and effect is explained except by an explanation that gets passed on from one link to the next.  But if every link in the chain needs an explanation, then no link in the chain has one.

This is the sort of thing Thomas Aquinas is thinking of when he talks about G-d as the First Cause in the beginning of his Summa Theologiae.

It’s a little bit like changing some Hong Kong dollars for some US dollars, changing them for Pakistani rupees, changing them for Kenya shillings, changing them for Emirati dirham, changing those for South African Rand, and continuing indefinitely without ever expecting to change any currency at all for any gold, or even using it to buy a Coca-Cola.

And there are other issues with talking about infinite sets of causes, or scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning such that there was not an infinite amount of time for this to happen in anyway.

Those are all concerns with saying there is an infinite chain of causes.

What are our other options? Well, we could try saying that there is something which is the Cause of Itself, but this makes no sense either. It can’t be caused unless it is not there yet, but it can’t cause itself unless it is there.  So nothing is the Cause of Itself.

And that leaves us with the idea that something is an Uncaused Cause.

Of course, that’s just a beginning.  Proving there is a First Cause does not prove the existence of G-d as such, much less prove that an entire religion like Christianity or Islam or Judaism is true.

The next step might be to argue that the Uncaused Cause is a personal G-d, like my friend Andrew Loke does in one of his books.  Or arguing for a MASSIVE amount of other information about What and Who the First Cause is, like Aquinas does in the rest of his Summa Theologiae.  Or telling the story of how this Creator G-d interacted with his creation, like the Torah and the rest of the Bible does.

Please don’t misunderstand the beginning.

And please don’t stop at the beginning.

Published in Religion and Philosophy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 174 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Give it a drink, boys.

    I’m done with jasmine for a while. It’s time for an iron Buddha.

    Twinings Chai black tea here.

    Pu’er now over here.

    • #61
  2. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    HR, do you accept these statements?

    The universe as we observe it had a beginning.

    I will agree with that if we also stipulate that we don’t know that we see all of the universe, and that we don’t know that there were not unseen portions of the universe present before the universe “as we observe it” began. Can we agree to that?

    Certainly not.

    I asked us to agree to two things:

    1. “that we don’t know that we see all of the universe,” and
    2. “that we don’t know  that there were not unseen portions of the universe present before the universe “as we observe it” began.

    Which of those prompts your “certainly not?” Because both seem entirely reasonable and modest statements, to me.

    Edit:

    Perhaps our disagreement stems from you and me interpreting the phrase “the universe as we observe it” differently?

    I interpret that phrase as meaning: the universe or portion of the universe that we observe in its current state. That’s the sense in which I’m willing to concede that we know it “began”: we know that it wasn’t always in the current state.

    Do you interpret that phrase as meaning something different?

     

    • #62
  3. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    HR, do you accept these statements?

    The universe as we observe it had a beginning.

    I will agree with that if we also stipulate that we don’t know that we see all of the universe, and that we don’t know that there were not unseen portions of the universe present before the universe “as we observe it” began. Can we agree to that?

    Certainly not.

    I asked us to agree to two things:

    1. “that we don’t know that we see all of the universe,” and
    2. “that we don’t know that there were not unseen portions of the universe present before the universe “as we observe it” began.

    Which of those prompts your “certainly not?” Because both seem entirely reasonable and modest statements, to me.

    Naturally, both of them.  You’re begging a question: You’re jumping ahead and asking me to assume things that should be discussed later.

    If we can accomplish a very modest Step 1 and agree that some particular thing began, then it would make sense to talk about what other things there might or might not be.

    Edit:

    Perhaps our disagreement stems from you and me interpreting the phrase “the universe as we observe it” differently?

    I interpret that phrase as meaning: the universe or portion of the universe that we observe in its current state. That’s the sense in which I’m willing to concede that we know it “began”: we know that it wasn’t always in the current state.

    Do you interpret that phrase as meaning something different?

    Of course I do not interpret it differently.

    The universe as we observe it,” “the universe as we know it,” “the entire universe as we know it,” and “the universe or portion of the universe that we observe in its current state” are all referring to the same thing.  It’s a thing about which you cannot or will not make a clear statement.

    Here you make an effort, saying: We know that the universe, or portion of the universe, that we observe in its current state was not always in its current state.  But that’s at best unclear.  Language like that normally means that it previously existed in a different state, as when MCU’s Nebula says “I wasn’t always like this.”

    miss brain. — kane52630:

    Would you accept the following phrasing?

    We know that the universe, or portion of the universe, that we observe in its current state has not existed eternally in that state.

    • #63
  4. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Would you accept the following phrasing?

    We know that the universe, or portion of the universe, that we observe in its current state has not existed eternally in that state.

    Yes.

    • #64
  5. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Would you accept the following phrasing?

    We know that the universe, or portion of the universe, that we observe in its current state has not existed eternally in that state.

    Yes.

    And now will you accept the following phrasing?

    We do not know that some form of the universe has not existed eternally.

    • #65
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Would you accept the following phrasing?

    We know that the universe, or portion of the universe, that we observe in its current state has not existed eternally in that state.

    Yes.

    And now will you accept the following phrasing?

    We do not know that some form of the universe has not existed eternally.

    Heavens!

    That is a conclusion!

    It’s obviously time for a premise!

    • #66
  7. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    So, HR, these are the things you keep trying to say, aren’t they?

    1. The universe, or portion of the universe, that we observe in its current state has not existed eternally in that state.

    2. We have no knowledge of any physical explanation for its entering into this state.

    3. We can speculate that there is more to the universe than we know that might explain things.

    • #67
  8. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    So, HR, these are the things you keep trying to say, aren’t they?

    1. The universe, or portion of the universe, that we observe in its current state has not existed eternally in that state.

    2. We have no knowledge of any physical explanation for its entering into this state.

    3. We can speculate that there is more to the universe than we know that might explain things.

    What I keep trying to say is what I said in #15:

    There’s no compelling reason to believe that the universe is not itself eternally pre-existing.

    Can you tell me, Mark, in some simple and unambiguous way, whether or not you agree with that statement? And, if you don’t agree, can you tell me the nature of the compelling reason(s) (e.g., scientific, theological, logical, philosophical, mathematical, aesthetic, etc.)?

    • #68
  9. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    There’s no compelling reason to believe that the universe is not itself eternally pre-existing.

    Can you tell me, Mark, in some simple and unambiguous way, whether or not you agree with that statement?

    I don’t.

    • #69
  10. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    There’s no compelling reason to believe that the universe is not itself eternally pre-existing.

    Can you tell me, Mark, in some simple and unambiguous way, whether or not you agree with that statement?

    I don’t.

    Hi Mark. Sorry, I was addressing that comment to SA, who is also Mark.

    • #70
  11. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    There’s no compelling reason to believe that the universe is not itself eternally pre-existing.

    Can you tell me, Mark, in some simple and unambiguous way, whether or not you agree with that statement?

    I don’t.

    To agree with a statement you have to first know what it means. If it is a statement about the physical world, that means that you have to know how one could at least in theory, given enough ability to make observations, determine by

    – logic

    -a priori knowledge

    -observation and induction

    if the statement is true.

    You have not said how anyone could know what it means.

    So no rational person could agree with it.

    • #71
  12. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    So, HR, these are the things you keep trying to say, aren’t they?

    1. The universe, or portion of the universe, that we observe in its current state has not existed eternally in that state.

    2. We have no knowledge of any physical explanation for its entering into this state.

    3. We can speculate that there is more to the universe than we know that might explain things.

    What I keep trying to say is what I said in #15:

    There’s no compelling reason to believe that the universe is not itself eternally pre-existing.

    Can you tell me, Mark, in some simple and unambiguous way, whether or not you agree with that statement? And, if you don’t agree, can you tell me the nature of the compelling reason(s) (e.g., scientific, theological, logical, philosophical, mathematical, aesthetic, etc.)?

    Of course I disagree. I’ve already said that.

    I disagree because the universe began.

    But obviously this is a matter for CONCLUSIONS. And obviously now we should be talking about PREMISES.

    So I say again, in order that you and I may have some small chance of communicating, have you or have you not been trying to say the following?

    1. The universe, or portion of the universe, that we observe in its current state has not existed eternally in that state.

    2. We have no knowledge of any physical explanation for its entering into this state.

    3. We can speculate that there is more to the universe than we know that might explain things.

    • #72
  13. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    There’s no compelling reason to believe that the universe is not itself eternally pre-existing.

    Can you tell me, Mark, in some simple and unambiguous way, whether or not you agree with that statement?

    I don’t.

    To agree with a statement you have to first know what it means. If it is a statement about the physical world, that means that you have to know how one could at least in theory, given enough ability to make observations, determine by

    – logic

    -a priori knowledge

    -observation and induction

    if the statement is true.

    You have not said how anyone could know what it means.

    So no rational person could agree with it.

    Mark, in the many comments here I’ve tried to be specific about what I mean. I wrote the sentence above in the context of all the other comments I’ve made. I think it’s actually pretty easy to express the point I’m trying to make. Let me see if I can be concise and unambiguous. (If the result still seems too ambiguous for this discussion, perhaps it’s not worth continuing.)

    First, there is a physical universe. It contains everything we have thus far observed. It may also contain things we have not yet observed. That is, it’s possible that we observe only a subset of the physical universe.

    While we believe, based on current scientific observation and theory, that the portion of the physical universe we observe has been expanding for approximately 13.8 billion years, we do not have a scientific basis for asserting that the physical universe came into being at that time, nor at any particular time, nor even that it ever came into being. We simply don’t know whether or not it is finite in size, nor do we know if it had a beginning, as opposed to having always existed in some form.

    That’s it. That’s all I’ve been trying to say.

    • #73
  14. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    the universe began

    Tell me how you know that.

    • #74
  15. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    the universe began

    Tell me how you know that.

    That’s the conversation I’ve been trying to have with you for about two days now, but you fight it.

    • #75
  16. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Mark, in the many comments here I’ve tried to be specific about what I mean.

    Was this supposed to be a reply to 72, not 71?

    • #76
  17. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    HR, you’ve been clear enough on this statement:

    The universe, or portion of the universe, that we observe in its current state has not existed eternally in that state.

    Do you also think the following?  You seemed to be saying them in # 32.

    We have no knowledge of any physical explanation for its entering into its current state.

    We can speculate that there is more to the universe than we know that might explain things.

    • #77
  18. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Tell me how scientists say the universe began. Not the expansion began, because the expansion was of something that was already there. Where did that something come from? What does science have to say about that?

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    There’s no compelling reason to believe that the universe is not itself eternally pre-existing.

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I wrote the sentence above in the context of all the other comments I’ve made. I think it’s actually pretty easy to express the point I’m trying to make. Let me see if I can be concise and unambiguous. (If the result still seems too ambiguous for this discussion, perhaps it’s not worth continuing.)

    First, there is a physical universe. It contains everything we have thus far observed. It may also contain things we have not yet observed. That is, it’s possible that we observe only a subset of the physical universe.

    While we believe, based on current scientific observation and theory, that the portion of the physical universe we observe has been expanding for approximately 13.8 billion years, we do not have a scientific basis for asserting that the physical universe came into being at that time, nor at any particular time, nor even that it ever came into being. We simply don’t know whether or not it is finite in size, nor do we know if it had a beginning, as opposed to having always existed in some form.

    That’s it. That’s all I’ve been trying to say.

    Before the expansion began, what do you reckon there was?  Can you name some aspect or component of the universe we have now that existed before the expansion?

    • #78
  19. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    the universe began

    Tell me how you know that.

    That’s the conversation I’ve been trying to have with you for about two days now, but you fight it.

    I will listen. Tell me how you know that the universe had a beginning.

    • #79
  20. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    the universe began

    Tell me how you know that.

    That’s the conversation I’ve been trying to have with you for about two days now, but you fight it.

    I will listen. Tell me how you know that the universe had a beginning.

    I’m trying.

    Please go up to #s 77 and 78 and answer some questions so there is at least a sliver of a chance that we will be able to communicate, or at least have the courtesy to leave me alone.

    • #80
  21. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    the universe began

    Tell me how you know that.

    That’s the conversation I’ve been trying to have with you for about two days now, but you fight it.

    I will listen. Tell me how you know that the universe had a beginning.

    I’m trying.

    Please go up to #s 77 and 78 and answer some questions so there is at least a sliver of a chance that we will be able to communicate, or at least have the courtesy to leave me alone.

    I don’t need to participate in your explanation, other than to listen. So I’m listening.

    Tell me how you know that the universe had a beginning.

    • #81
  22. FrankTorson Member
    FrankTorson
    @FrankTorson

    HR, St. Augustine,

    While you two were debating whether the universe had a beginning or always existed in some form, I thought of a different question.  Maybe it’s more philosophical than scientific.

    Who cares?

    Let’s say St. Augustine is about 90 percent correct on both counts.  The universe did have a beginning and that universe is the result of a first mover.  St. Augustine calls this first mover G-d.  But let’s just stick with first mover for now.  Or better yet, let’s call this first mover a Cosmic Thingie.

    What if all 8 billion humans, currently living today, agree that the universe we observe is the result of a first mover.  But that’s all we agree on.

    This doesn’t mean that all 8 billion of us agree that the Catholic church is where we should worship on Sundays.  In fact, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we should worship at all.  Or does it?  Maybe this Cosmic Thingie is indifferent as to whether any of us 8 billion people worship it.  Maybe this Cosmic Thingie is angered by people who worship it.

    If all we have agreed on is that some Cosmic Thingie created the universe, that would not get us to believing that praying towards Mecca is what we ought to do to please this Cosmic Thingie.

    I like HR’s skepticism regarding whether the universe actually needs a first mover.  But even if HR changes his mind as a result of this discussion, so what?  Nothing significant seems to follow from that conclusion.

    What say you (both of you)?

    • #82
  23. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    FrankTorson (View Comment):
    I like HR’s skepticism regarding whether the universe actually needs a first mover.  But even if HR changes his mind as a result of this discussion, so what?  Nothing significant seems to follow from that conclusion.

    Frank, I agree that nothing of significance is likely to come from this discussion, nor from most discussions most of us have in almost any forum. But I find it interesting and enjoyable, and that’s justification enough for me to spend a little time with it.

    My mind would be easy to change, given that my only position right now is we don’t know that the universe ever came into being — that it has not existed forever. All it would take to change that is compelling evidence that we do know. And I’m open to that.

    I look forward to Mark (SA) offering his reason for saying that we do in fact know that

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    the universe began.

    (I hope he’ll give that reason in a relatively clear and concise manner. But I’ll listen regardless, and respond when he’s done.)

    • #83
  24. Freeven Member
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    This is where I bow out. I appreciated the early exchange. But I no longer understand why you two can’t seem to move forward. For what it’s worth (as neither a scientist or a theologian), I’ve found HR’s comments pretty clear and easy to follow. I’m often at a loss as to what SA is saying or objecting to. *shrug*

    Anyway, I always enjoy these things (until I don’t.) Thanks, both.

    • #84
  25. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Freeven (View Comment):

    This is where I bow out. I appreciated the early exchange. But I no longer understand why you two can’t seem to move forward. For what it’s worth (as neither a scientist or a theologian), I’ve found HR’s comments pretty clear and easy to follow. I’m often at a loss as to what SA is saying or objecting to. *shrug*

    Anyway, I always enjoy these things (until I don’t.) Thanks, both.

    Completely understandable. Thanks for hanging in thus far. ;)

    • #85
  26. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    FrankTorson (View Comment):

    HR, St. Augustine,

    While you two were debating whether the universe had a beginning or always existed in some form, I thought of a different question. Maybe it’s more philosophical than scientific.

    Who cares?

    Let’s say St. Augustine is about 90 percent correct on both counts. The universe did have a beginning and that universe is the result of a first mover. St. Augustine calls this first mover G-d. But let’s just stick with first mover for now. Or better yet, let’s call this first mover a Cosmic Thingie.

    What if all 8 billion humans, currently living today, agree that the universe we observe is the result of a first mover. But that’s all we agree on.

    This doesn’t mean that all 8 billion of us agree that the Catholic church is where we should worship on Sundays. In fact, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we should worship at all. Or does it? Maybe this Cosmic Thingie is indifferent as to whether any of us 8 billion people worship it. Maybe this Cosmic Thingie is angered by people who worship it.

    If all we have agreed on is that some Cosmic Thingie created the universe, that would not get us to believing that praying towards Mecca is what we ought to do to please this Cosmic Thingie.

    I like HR’s skepticism regarding whether the universe actually needs a first mover. But even if HR changes his mind as a result of this discussion, so what? Nothing significant seems to follow from that conclusion.

    What say you (both of you)?

    I say you’re doing a Kant move there, and it’s not wrong as far as it goes. Proof that there is some kind of a creator is not proof that some particular religion is correct.

    But no one ever said it is. It’s just a start.

    • #86
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I don’t need to participate in your explanation, other than to listen. So I’m listening.

    Tell me how you know that the universe had a beginning.

    I say the universe began. You say we don’t know that because [reasons].

    I try again and again to discuss your reasons with you.

    You fight me every step of the way, outright refuse to respond to questions concerning your reasons, and now you say all need to be doing is listening.

    What’s the deal, man?

    • #87
  28. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Everything about the universe about which we know anything began.

    Every known component of the universe began.

    Every known aspect of the universe began.

    Therefore the universe (most likely) began.

    • #88
  29. FrankTorson Member
    FrankTorson
    @FrankTorson

    Dr. Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist who specializes in quantum mechanics and cosmology.  Dr. Carroll says that, to the question of “Did the universe begin,” we still don’t know the answer.  

    St. Augustine is, of course, entitled to his opinion.  But my sense is that Dr. Carroll is right about this.  We just don’t know yet whether the universe had a beginning or not.  

    • #89
  30. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I don’t need to participate in your explanation, other than to listen. So I’m listening.

    Tell me how you know that the universe had a beginning.

    I say the universe began. You say we don’t know that because [reasons].

    I try again and again to discuss your reasons with you.

    You fight me every step of the way, outright refuse to respond to questions concerning your reasons, and now you say all need to be doing is listening.

    What’s the deal, man?

    That’s ridiculous, and you should know better.

    If I say that we do not know that there is a prehistoric megalodon living in the deepest canyons of the Pacific, are you then going to ask me why I believe we don’t know that? Am I supposed to prove the negative?

    In contrast, if you say that you do know that there is such a beast, it’s perfectly reasonable for me to ask you how you know. You are the one making the positive assertion. You are the one claiming knowledge.

    I say that we do not know that the universe had a beginning. You say that we do know it did, and claim further that it is scientific knowledge.

    So make your case. I don’t think you have one. I think you’re wrong. But present your evidence, or your argument, and let’s see.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.