God, The Universal One, or Nature?

In the previous part, we went through the method of reasoning we will use to evaluate the many different explanations for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe. To answer the ultimate metaphysical question of "where did everything come from?" there are four main generalized answers, represented as metaphysical hypotheses, or worldviews. These include Naturalism, which denies anything beyond the physical world from which anything can come; Pantheism, which equates god to the physical universe; Deism, which posits God that causes the universe, but ignores it afterwards; and Theism, which posits God who causes the universe and acts within it afterwards.

Although there have been deductive arguments provided for the existence of God, the main worldview of modern academic institutions is that of materialism, or naturalism, and they often see inductive arguments as the only valid way to reach truth. This reductionistic philosophy is known as scientism, and it views the inductive method of reasoning as the only real way we can know what is real. This view is not logically sound, as it assumes science is the only valid method of reasoning before performing science, and can thus not be proved using science, but is a deductive downstream from the a priori assumption of materialism. Thus, inductive reasoning is not the only valid method for finding truth, and in the previous part, we looked over abduction, a method of reasoning that compares the explanatory power of multiple competing hypotheses to see which one offers the best explanation, also called "inference to the best explanation." Deduction produces certainty, but abduction produces probability, much like inductive reasoning.

This is perfect when we have multiple hypotheses that aim to explain the same phenomenon, and by comparing them to each other, we can filter out which one has the best explanatory power, which is the one that is most likely true.

Comparing Multiple Hypotheses

Subscribing to a specific presupposition about nature and reality is a fallacious move, and we want to remain as unbiased as possible. Thus, in this examination of the four worldviews posited, we will be open to the possibilities of each one. By keeping an open mind and taking into account each worldview's beliefs about reality, we can extrapolate predictions and statements about nature to determine which one best explains the evidence we see. A specific hypothesis will provide a specific cause for the effect in question, corresponding to the beliefs each system holds. This means that each worldview's explanations for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe will each have a different amount of explanatory power as to the effect. If explanatory power can offer support for a hypothesis/worldview, it should be possible to see if recent discoveries in astrophysics and cosmology support a Naturalistic, Panteistic, or Theistic/Deistic hypothesis.

Each Metaphysical Hypothesis would need to explain two main facts about our universe. The first being the many discoveries that led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning in the finite past, known as the Big Bang Theory. The second is the fine-tuning of the constants of the laws of physics and the initial conditions and distribution of mass-energy at the beginning of the universe that allow for the thriving of life. If those terms are confusing for you, I suggest you go back and read through this entire series, as each article builds on the last (https://www.ptequestionstoeden.com/blog/categories/did-the-universe-have-a-beginning).

God and The Cosmic Beginning

We will start by seeing which hypothesis best explains the evidence that the universe had a beginning. In order to compare the explanatory power of each Metaphysical Hypothesis, we need to examine what the expectations of each one are concerning a finite and fine-tuned universe. By doing so, we can filter out the worldviews that are not able to explain the effects in question, and see which ones offer better explanations. To begin, do Theists have grounds for expecting a finite universe? Stephen C. Meyer says that the Philosopher Ernan McMullin, who denies that anything but deductive arguments for God can be made, mentions that a beginning to the universe fits the Theistic expectation. If Theists believe there was a creator of the universe, then there would be reason to suspect evidence that it did indeed have a beginning. Even one of the men who discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Arno Penzias, said that what we see in the universe, the expansion of space, is exactly what he would expect if "I had nothing but the first five books of Moses."

Indeed, the Bible does mention God creating the Universe (Genesis 1:1), creating time, and expanding the heavens (Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 45:12, 51:16; Jeremiah 10:12; Zechariah 12:1; 2 Timothy 1:9; and Titus 1:2)

"The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent" (Psalm 104:2)

"He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea." (Job 9:8)

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22)

Statements such as these in the Bible reveal that what we observe in the universe and expect from Big Bang Cosmology is what we would expect given a Christian or Theistic Worldview, rather than a naturalistic one. Stephen Meyer also sets up an abductive syllogism to display this point.

Premise 1: If Christianity's view of God creating the universe is true, then we have reason to expect the universe had a beginning.

Premise 2: We observe evidence that the universe had a beginning.

Conclusion: We have reason to think that the Christian view of the origin of the universe may be true.

This means that the Big Bang, and the discoveries supporting it, offer epistemic support for the Theistic/Deistic hypothesis, although not deductive certainty. This is the exact way that scientific evidence confirms or denies a theory, as there may be multiple hypotheses, and as more evidence is gathered, they are filtered out, and failed predictions and expectations are made identifiable. The theory that accounts for the most evidence is deemed the most probable.

More Than Just The Bible

There are more reasons to expect a finite universe given Theism than just a few verses from the Bible. Theism holds that God is a personal agent with causal powers and free will. Humans also have causal powers and free will, so that we can cause new things to come into existence. So by extrapolating from our uniform experience of personal causal agents causing new things, and assuming God exists, we should expect God to have the same ability to cause new things to come into existence. Also, since God by definition is the creator of everything, or in philosophy, the prime reality, it would not be surprising if the causal powers are much greater than personal agents within the universe. We should expect God to have caused the universe to come into existence, as well as evidence of this act of creation.

Theists believe that God is the prime reality, that from which all else comes. Thus, Theists should expect evidence of a beginning to be observed in the universe. Moreover, General Relativity describes matter and energy as existing within space and time. E=mc² lets us know that energy and matter are linked, and the concept of spacetime tells us that space and time are linked. So, if God created all matter and energy, then space and time would be logically necessary as well. So the entire universe, as well as the time for it, would have begun at this beginning. If you have no time, no change can occur, and thus nothing meaningful is possible. If you have no space, then there is nowhere for matter to exist, and thus, no meaningful event can happen. If you have no matter, then there is nothing to exist in space and time, and you have nothing for meaningful events to happen with. So that if one of God's goals were to have a universe where meaningful events can happen, all three need to be present, linked to each other, and cause and effect must take place.

The evidence for a cosmic beginning lends abductive support to the Theistic hypothesis for what caused the universe.

Theism vs. Naturalism with Reference to the Cosmic Beginning

But why is evidence of a beginning to the universe more expected given Theism than Naturalism? In other words, does Naturalism better account for the beginning of the universe? Having a beginning requires a cause for such, and if nature had a cause, then the cause cannot be nature. This means that if the universe didn't have a beginning, there would be no need for a creator, since matter would be eternal. But we do not see evidence of this. Under a naturalistic view, there is nothing beyond nature, so it expects that nature would be eternal and self-existent, only changing its form since the infinite past and into the future. Historically speaking, from a naturalistic point of view, evidence for a cosmic beginning was extremely surprising. For this very reason, other naturalistic models and explanations have been given in an attempt to explain away the beginning, such as the Steady-State and Oscillating Universe Models.

Naturalism can offer no causally adequate explanation for the cause of the universe. Nothing exists beyond space, time, and matter to do any causing. Moreover, naturalists prior to cosmology and astrophysics readily posited an infinite and eternal universe, implying they had very few expectations for a beginning and no expectations for evidence of eternal age. Yet the CMBR, Redshifts, the BGV Theorem, the Singularity Theorems, and General Relativity all represent examples of evidence that suggest the universe had a beginning. The Singularity Theorems posit that time, space, and matter are all emergent properties of the universe with the singularity. But, again, Naturalism posits nothing beyond nature to cause, but evidence suggests that nature came into existence, yet it has no explanation for such an event since the cause would have to be something separate from the effect (the universe). If the universe converged on a single point in the past where the curvature of space reaches an infinite value, and the spatial volume reaches a value of zero, there is no place for energy to be composed, and no fields to do any causing.

Before this singularity, no energy, space, time, or quantum fields existed to do any causing. And the BGV Theorem applies to any universe that is expanding, including Inflationary Cosmological Models. All energy would eventually reach a recessional velocity of the speed of causation/light in the reverse direction of time, marking the beginning of the expansion, even if there is an infinite amount of space. It makes zero sense to say that before space, time, and energy came into existence, there was more space, time, and energy to cause them. X cannot cause itself; another entity, like Y or W, must act to cause X. The cause cannot be the same as the effect, as that violates the principles of causation. Theism provides a better explanation for the beginning.

Theism also offers a simpler explanation for the beginning of the universe than Naturalism does. Since Theism posits a being with relevant causal powers that transcend space and time, God could easily have acted to bring them into existence. So, given Naturalism, no being beyond space and time exists that could act to bring the universe into existence. Therefore, Theism offers a simpler, more likely, and causally adequate explanation than Naturalism does with reference to the cosmic beginning.

Mind or Material?

Regardless of the issues Naturalism has with the beginning of the universe, naturalists will still attempt to posit some prior material state that caused the universe. Positing a material state before the universe would result in an infinite regress of material states, all causing one another. To avoid this regress, there must either be an initial uncaused material state, or that the sufficient conditions to produce a universe have always existed in the past, and there are major issues with both of these solutions. An uncaused first material state would violate the principles of cause and effect and deny common-sense reasoning. In fact, this is the exact issue some Atheists use to argue that God cannot exist because He would require an infinite regress of creators. That is assuming God is material; instead, it is positing a material state that results in an infinite regress, with a solution that denies reason. If you posit the idea that the sufficient material conditions to produce a universe have just always existed in the past, then we should expect to see evidence that the universe began an infinite time ago.

This is because the moment the correct conditions for a material event are met in the prior state, that event will happen. So the moment that the conditions for causing a universe were met in an infinite past, the universe should have been caused an infinite amount of time ago. But we do not see evidence of this, thus the universe did not begin because a material state met the correct conditions for it an infinite amount of time ago. Rather, positing a personal, intelligent, and transcendent agent with free will resolves this issue. Having free will entails the concept that a causal agent can initiate a new chain of causation without being compelled by any prior material conditions or states. A mind with free will is causally adequate to cause a universe, which eliminates the requirement of infinite regress before the universe began, since no material conditions are needed to produce the cause.

“Free agency also eliminates the need to posit an uncaused material first cause, which would violate the principles of causality and sufficient reason. It does so because having free will—familiar to us all because of our own introspective awareness of the powers of our own minds—means that our decisions or acts of mind can alter material states of affairs without being wholly determined by a prior set of necessary and sufficient material conditions." (Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 253)

Attempting to explain the beginning under Naturalism results in an explanatory halt, but positing a mind with free agency that transcends the universe seems to offer a better and simpler explanation for the beginning of the universe, and fits the logical requirements for producing one. Even the idea of positing a material state makes no sense, since again, before the beginning, no space, time, or mass-energy existed to cause, and thus no material to be formed into a specific state with causal adequacy for a universe. It is a fancy form of X that caused X to begin to exist. As John Lennox often says, "Nonsense means nonsense, even when it is uttered by high-powered scientists."

Theism vs. Pantheism with Reference to the Cosmic Beginning

Now that we have established the fact that naturalism cannot possibly explain what caused the universe, we are left with another possibility, or worldview, left in the ring. Does Pantheism offer a better explanation for the cause of the universe than Theism does? Many Eastern religions and some philosophies subscribe to the idea that the universe is coequal with god. In general, Pantheism does affirm the existence of God, but this god is impersonal as the ultimate reality from which the material world is unified. God, nature, and consciousness are all part of the same essence; they equate god with the entirety of nature, and people with matter. But it fails to explain what caused the universe to come into being. The Pantheistic god is coexistent with the physical universe, which fails to offer an entity external to the universe that is able to cause it to come into existence. If there were no universe, then there couldn't be a Pantheistic god, and thus nothing before the universe to cause it. It fails for the same reasons as Naturalism.

Actually, Pantheism is simply Naturalism with the word god painted over it, which fails to offer an entity separate from the universe as the cause. Moreover, it equates the infinite God with the finite universe; thus, many Pantheists believe that the universe is eternal and self-existent. This contradicts all of our discoveries and assumptions about nature and cause and effect. I personally know a Pantheist, and their number one defense is that the evidence for the beginning of the universe is invalid because we have no idea if the laws of physics work differently elsewhere in the universe. Yet this person, and people like them, completely forget that with General Relativity, we can accurately describe the motion of objects in space, and that is why we accept it as the best theory of Gravity. Moreover, the fact that we can use Spectroscopy to determine the elemental makeup of stars means that the laws that govern the behaviour of particles and atoms, the forces involved, and the masses of them behave the same as they do on Earth, else we wouldn't be able to determine the elemental makeup of distant stars via the light that arrives on Earth.

Finally, since the Pantheistic god is not personal, it has no free will, and thus no explanation for how the universe could have come into existence without falling into an infinite material regress.

God Explains the Beginning

The God hypothesis is the simplest and best-equipped worldview to explain a very foundational metaphysical question: Where did everything come from? As it aligns with what the evidence in the universe suggests, there was a cosmic beginning. Naturalism and Pantheism fail to explain anything external to themselves to cause the universe, since neither posits beings beyond the physical universe to do the causing. Thus, Theism and Deism offer the most rational, causally adequate, and simplest explanations for what caused the beginning of the universe. If time, space, and matter all had a beginning, the cause of such must have been spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and personal. These attributes fit the entity posited by Theism and Deism, or more simply, God. Theism and Deism are the only worldviews that meet this criterion for causing the universe to exist a finite time ago.

God and the Fine-Tuning of the Universe

The next enigma that these four worldviews must explain is the fine-tuning of the constants of the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe from the very beginning. Could Naturalism actually offer a better explanation for the fine-tuning parameters of the universe than Theism? Well, for starters, in the unified human experience, intelligent agents produce finely-tuned systems that exhibit improbable construction and functional outcomes or goals. A car engine has many improbably arranged parts that, when put together, perform the specific outcome of transforming heat energy from fuel into mechanical energy to move a car. A food recipe is another form of a fine-tuned system as it exhibits specific steps, ingredients, and techniques that an intelligent agent follows to produce a specific goal, like a cake or steak. As previously mentioned in this series, physical systems that manifest extremely improbable constructions or arrangements, as well as a recognizable pattern or functional outcomes, always result from the action of an intelligent agent, and never from undirected material processes.

Furthermore, intelligent agents must choose from a range of possibilities in order to achieve a specific goal, like a physicist applying boundary conditions on the Universal Wave Function in Quantum Cosmology. This act of choosing, or constraining possibilities, is what is meant by the term "fine-tuning." In our repeated experience, only intelligent, free-willed causal agents are known for creating finely-tuned systems. Thus, Theists have a very good reason to expect the universe to have evidence of fine-tuning for the development and thriving of life. Stephen Meyers offers another abductive syllogism to display this argument.

Premise 1: Given what we know about intelligently designed objects and systems, if an intelligent agent caused the universe, we may expect the universe to exhibit living organisms that depend upon finely-tuned conditions.

Premise 2: We observe extremely improbable initial conditions and physical constants in the laws of physics that allow for life.

Conclusion: We have reason to think that an intelligent agent acted to design the universe may be true.

Theism vs. Naturalism with Reference to Cosmic Fine-Tuning

The idea that an immanent intelligence, like aliens, may be responsible for the fine-tuning, as many naturalists posit aliens as the cause for the origin of life. Rather, the evidence of the beginning of nature and the presence of fine-tuning from the start suggest the intelligence was transcendent. Thus, the fine-tuning evidence also offers epistemic support for the Theistic and Deistic hypotheses, as they posit an intelligent personal being that exists outside of the universe that can cause it. Because of this, the postulations of Theism and Deism offer explanations that are causally adequate to produce a finely-tuned universe. But what about Naturalism?

Do naturalists have a reason to expect such a finely-tuned universe that allows for the thriving of life? Naturalism denies the existence of anything beyond the physical universe, as previously mentioned. It is under the impression that the laws of physics can explain all phenomena. But the laws of physics cannot explain the fine-tuning of the constants within them, as well as the initial distribution of mass-energy and other conditions of the universe. The laws of physics simply describe phenomena in nature that obey a repeated pattern or structure. And the structure of their equations allows for various values to be used, as well as the constants being features of the equations themselves, and not something they can explain on their own. Furthermore, the laws of physics do not explain why the universe had the precise initial conditions and mass-energy distribution it did at the start, as the laws simply apply to those conditions to govern their development with time. In simpler terms, the laws presuppose the material conditions of the universe in order to describe it accurately.

If you read "Does Quantum Cosmology Explain a Universe from Nothing?", you may recall discussing how differential equations, or mathematical formulas used to describe objects within physical systems, have a near infinite amount of possible solutions when left alone. There must be initial conditions of the system, as well as the boundaries of it, determined by measurement of the material conditions of the system, before they can accurately describe a phenomenon in nature. Once this is done, the number of possible solutions is limited, and the equation can now include solutions that describe the material system in question. Neither the boundary conditions nor the initial conditions are determined by the equations themselves; in this case, the laws of physics. The laws simply describe what will happen once conditions are applied. And those are discovered by external input; thus, the laws do not explain why the system has the boundaries or initial conditions it does, they just describe what will happen. “That information is logically extrinsic to the structure of the form of the law”. (Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 267-269).

The fundamental laws of physics in no way determine the fine-tuned initial arrangement of the laws, as well as the initial distribution of mass-energy at the beginning of the universe. IN mathematical logic, the initial and boundary conditions are not determined by the laws, but the physicist must take them into account from the very beginning and onward; in other words, they are contingent. The laws of physics presuppose the initial conditions and distribution of mass-energy.

What Does Naturalism Expect?

Since our repeated and unified human experience has shown us that finely-tuned systems result only from intelligent agency, and since Naturalism denies the existence of any intelligence beyond the universe, Naturalists should not expect to find fine-tuning evidence in the universe, upon which life depends crucially. They should expect a universe in which every single event that happens can be reduced to the laws of physics, but as we have seen, there are many phenomena that the laws of physics cannot explain, but instead presuppose to make sense of the universe.

But why shouldn't they expect fine-tuning? As mentioned in "Is Our Universe Fine-Tuned for the Existence of Life?," we went over how Roger Penrose calculated the total possible entropy for the universe, as well as the total entropy of the universe if it were a black hole, thus exhibiting as many possible distributions of matter as possible, or the most chaotic system for the universe physically possible. What he discovered is that the laws of physics are consistent with a very large range of possible universes, each with different constants and initial mass-energy distributions. And since the laws of physics do not determine the values of those conditions, there is nothing that favors one universe over another; it is completely random. Penrose showed us that the probability of a lifeless universe given Naturalism is vastly greater than that of a life-permitting one. He calculated the total entropy of our present universe to be 10¹⁰¹, yet the total entropy of the universe as a black hole was 10¹²³. Which is substantially greater than 10¹⁰¹. In fact, subtracting 10¹⁰¹ from 10¹²³ yields 10¹²³ again, because 10¹²³ is 10¹²² times greater than 10¹⁰¹. This represents the total number of universes that would result in a black hole.

But also given the fine-tuning of other parameters, like the expansion rate of the universe. If it were changed slightly, we would be in either an eternally and uncontrollably expanding universe or one that is overcome by gravity and recollapses. There is a greater reason to expect a lifeless universe given Naturalism than a life-permitting one. Positing an intelligence resolves this issue because a mind can organize and limit possibilities to achieve the goal of life in a cause-and-effect universe.

Theism vs. Pantheism with Reference to Cosmic Fine-Tuning

Now we can move on to Pantheism. Does it offer a better explanation for the discovery of the fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe? The god of Pantheism is not a conscious being or personal agent who can make decisions or communicate with other intelligent agents. This means there is nothing to do any choosing for the goal of life, but there are more issues. There is a very fine line between things that are alive (life) and inanimate things (matter) concerning the physical world, yet pantheists see them all as the same thing, part of the "Universal One." They see everything about consciousness as an illusion, because we are all part of one big inpersonality.

Therefore, Pantheism, like Naturalism, fails to explain anything outside the universe to account for what determined the initial distribution of mass-energy at the beginning of the universe. This is because there is no prior intelligence to make choices about the values of the constants and distribution to allow for the development of life in the universe. Pantheists see god and the universe as sharing the same self-existence. Since god is eternal, and is the universe, the universe is not created, but we do not see evidence for this proposition. If the universe began to exist, then there is no intelligent agent outside of it because nature and god are the same being. This, in turn, fails to explain the fine-tuning of the universe, as the universe itself cannot choose the initial conditions that are decided external to it.

God Explains Fine-Tuning

The fine-tuning of the constants in the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe represent effects that require an explanation. This explanation must have the attributes that fit the criteria that allow it to produce the effect in question. Since the effect is the emergence of space, time, matter, and the initial distributions of it, and the fine-tuning of the constants of the laws of physics and their relationships to one another, the cause must have the attributes of transcendence, intelligence, and personallity to have decided to create a universe finely-tuned for the existence of intelligent life on Earth. Theism and Deism both posit explanatory entities with these attributes, along with free will, unmatched intelligence and creativity, and infinite power. God possesses the correct skill set, as Stephen Meyer would put it, and causal powers to create a finely-tuned universe with the goal of life.

“Similarly, positing a specifically transcendent intelligence to explain the fine-tuning is warranted by the nature and the timing of the appearances of the effect itself—and by attributes of the posited cause, namely, God.” (Stephen C. Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Pg 277)

Neither Naturalism nor Pantheism offers any possibility of the existence of an entity with the attributes required to create a universe and explain the fine-tuning of the constants and initial conditions. Therefore, Theism and Deism offer better explanations for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe we live in today than Naturalism or Pantheism.

Conclusion

We have attempted to stay as objective as possible in our search for what caused the universe. We found that there are four main hypotheses to explain the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe. Naturalism, which denies the existence of anything beyond nature from which all else can come; Pantheism, which equates god with the physical universe and denies anything external to it; Deism, which posits a transcendent God who created the universe and did nothing more after; and Theism, which affirms God created the universe, but also acts within it afterwards. Out of those four worldviews, Deism and Theism came out as the only posutlates that are causally and explanatorily adequate to account for the discoveries that our universe is finite in the past, and fine-tuned from second zero.

More wild forms of Naturalism, like String Theory, or Quantum Cosmology, only push the fine-tuning issue back to unobservable realms, and themselves have theistic implications of minds acting on prior information. They also lack the predictive success that more accepted theories of physics and cosmology have had, meaning they lack observable confirmation. They represent more bloated ontologies and confusing explanations than the four posited here. The discoveries discussed in this series imply that the cause of the universe cannot be something within the universe, as even sufficient reason tells us that it is irrational. The cause of the universe must be transcendent, and no Naturalistic theories offer something external to nature to cause. The existence of God is very much supported by discoveries of modern science, as well as was the motivation for the development of it as a systematic institution of discovery it is today.

In the last article, we will discuss the final implications of this truth. Coming to a closing conclusion on what caused the universe. What we can say for now is that God is the best, simplest, causally adequate, and logically consistent explanation for the cause of the universe. May He reach you, and seep into your heart, and open you up to the love and grace He has prepared for you.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:18-32)