Eric (co-host of Sunday School & Polycarp’s Paradigm) has an older friend named Chuck who used to be Christian and then became agnostic a few years ago, around the same time as his brother. Chuck’s brother said that if we (Eric and Pat) could answer these 7 questions without reference to faith, a “Holy Book”, or a “prophet”, then he would believe in God again. Plus, he said he would give us a jar of hot sauce.
“I’ll Believe In God If You Can Answer These 7 Questions.”
OR, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE.
Recommended Resources & Related Episodes
For a more in-depth explanation of arguments for God’s existence, please reference my series (and companion) on natural theology here.
Also, you can hear my (Pat’s) conversion story on Polycarp’s Paradigm here.
Also, on EWTN’s The Journey Home below.
The 7 Questions
- Is there a God? If so, how did he come to be?
We don’t need to assume the authority of a sacred text to affirm God’s existence. In fact, philosophers have long argued for God’s existence from entirely “natural” starting points and demonstrated not just God’s existence, but to some extent, God’s nature, through reason alone. This project is known as natural theology (or metaphysics), whereupon a philosopher begins with some undeniable fact of experience (for example, that change occurs; that some beings are contingent in their existence; etc.), abstracts a metaphysical principle necessary to explain this (the actualization of a potential; the principle of sufficient reason; etc.), then drives through said principle to its logical conclusion of a metaphysically necessary and immutable, eternal source of Being. Namely, God.
These types of arguments can offer a certain and definitive knowledge of God’s existence (and, again, to some extent) God’s nature, since they proceed through deductive reasoning. Meaning, if the premises are true and the logic valid, the conclusion follows necessarily. Here’s a “rough and ready” example:
…
One of the quickest ways to arrive at God’s existence is to begin with a general explanatory principle. Once this principle is given, it can then be applied to any “natural thing” – specifically, anything which exists in a limited and finite way – to see how we must arrive (at least ultimately) at some nonfinite and nonlimited (read: infinite and unlimited) thing to satisfy the explanatory principle.
How could this argument work? Think of it in two steps. The first step is to select the right explanatory principle, preferably one that cannot be denied except on pain of incoherence. After which is step two: show how a consistent application of such a principle leads ineluctably the existence of God. Let’s flesh out these steps individually.
Step 1: Every finite, limited being has a sufficient explanation for its existence. Call this a “modest” principle of sufficient reason (mPSR).
- Definition: a “finite, limited being” is any existing thing which is more questionable than answerable; anything which exists but “only this much,” or “only to this degree,” or “only in this way,” or “only here vs there,” or “only at this time vs that time,” etc. In short, a finite, limited being is any existing thing that cannot be sufficiently explained by reference only to itself, since we can always ask another, “Why?” (Why is it here vs there, why does it only have these powers instead of other powers, etc?)
We should believe the mPSR is true, because:
- The mPSR is basic, assumed, and common sense. Science and philosophy also depend upon the mPSR (science and philosophy are, after all, on the hunt for explanations.) To deny the mPSR would be to undercut rational and empirical investigation. For example: Maybe we only think humans evolved from lower life forms, whereas, in fact, humans just spontaneously popped into existence. No explanation needed!
- The mPSR is as empirically supported as anything can get. As it happens, the finite, limited things of our experience do have explanations, and when we cannot determine an explanation (like in a murder case; i.e. a dead body) we don’t assume there is no explanation, only that we haven’t enough evidence to determine what that explanation is.
- We cannot coherently deny the mPSR, since to believe things can happen without explanation invites a radical, global skepticism. To deny the mPSR would suggest our belief states could happen without explanation. In which case, we should be dubious of our belief states, including the belief state which includes denying the mPSR. This means the mPSR is a bedrock principle. If we affirm human reason at all, we affirm the mPSR.
- The mPSR also emerges from the act/potency distinction. Since anything which exists only exists insofar as something actual caused it to be – less that something be pure actuality itself, which exists necessarily – then everything in act (except pure actuality itself) is caused by something already in act and, so, has a sufficient explanation for its existence. And pure actuality qua pure actuality has an explanation, as well. It exists through a necessity of the kind of thing it is.
The next step is simple. Step 2: If every finite, limited being has an explanation, then eventually we must explain all finite, limited beings (or simply the collection of them; even if they are infinite in number). But we cannot explain all limits by invoking further limits, otherwise we violate the mPSR, since limits always point to an explanation beyond themselves. Therefore, we must explain the existence of any finite, limited being by affirming the existence of (at least one) qualitatively unlimited and infinite being. But there can only be one unlimited and infinite being (since in order to have two, there’d need to be a difference, but then one would LACK something the other had, and would no longer be unlimited and infinite). Therefore, God exists.
Note: To say a being is qualitatively unlimited means this being has no restrictions on what it can do, what it knows, or how good it is. We are not talking about an infinite spatial magnitude, or anything like that, but rather being (“Being”) free of any spatial/temporal boundaries at all. To be qualitatively unlimited, this being would be inherently transcendent of physical reality – time-less, space-less, immaterial, etc. Essentially, an act of existence existing through itself with no restrictions on power, knowledge, or perfection. In a word, God.
Further note: This qualitatively unlimited being (God) would also contain within itself the intelligibility to provide the complete set of answers to the complete set of questions that could be coherently asked. Since God would be the ultimate, non-arbitrary explanation for why anything exists (including himself) all intelligibility is grounded in God’s qualitatively perfect and necessary act of existence. Hence, God is truth; just as God is power; just as God is goodness.
Final note: Notice in order to explain why any finite, limited being exists, we arrive at the existence of a metaphysically necessary being – specifically, a being which exists in virtue of what it is. Therefore, nothing caused God to exist; since God’s essence just is the pure, unrestricted act of existence as such. To ask what caused God is equivalent to asking, “What caused an uncaused, necessarily existing being?” which doesn’t make sense.
…
Here’s another path – or a sketch, at least. (For a fuller development, and consideration of further objections, please reference my series on natural theology, here.)
Step 1: Nothing exists outside the totality of reality (otherwise we’re not talking about the “totality” of reality). Therefore, nothing could have caused the totality of reality. Therefore, there must be at least one uncaused cause in the totality of reality, otherwise the totality of reality would not exist – there would be literally nothing. Explanation: This conclusion follows from the simple notion that if everything in reality were a caused reality (in need of something beyond itself to exist), but nothing beyond reality to do the causing, then nothing would have ever been brought into existence. We would, in effect, be saying that all of reality is dependent for its existence upon something beyond itself – but that something isn’t there; it doesn’t exist – and so the dependency conditions could never be fulfilled; and so reality (in total) would never exist. But reality does exist. Therefore, not all of reality (collectively, anyway) can be a caused reality. To explain why anything exists instead of nothing, there must be at least one uncaused reality.
Step 2: Only a qualitatively perfect reality can be an uncaused reality. There are a couple ways of seeing this. Let’s quickly examine two.
First, anything that is limited is caused, since anything that is limited (either in what it can do, it’s shape, size, location, duration, knowledge, etc) leaves unexplained restrictions. We can always ask another “why?” when encountering limits. Why is this thing here and not there? Why is this thing only this shape instead of that shape? Why is this thing only capable of doing X instead of Y?; etc. Limits point to outside causes – things (efficient causes, material causes, etc) which determine that finite being to exist in that particular way, and not some other. For example: rocks are limited, people are limited, planets are limited, electrons are limited; pretty much everything we encounter or think about or postulate is limited and finite. But if everything that is limited and finite has a cause, then not everything can be limited and finite. One thing – and perhaps only one thing – must be unlimited and infinite, with no restrictions, boundaries, or limits on what it is, what it knows, or what it can do.
Here’s another way of seeing this. An uncaused reality is something which exists in virtue of what it is; is something which has a special, and, in fact, radically different nature (or essence) than most everything we experience, since most everything we experience is a caused reality and does not, therefore, exist in virtue of what it is (otherwise such things would exist necessarily, and not contingently). So, whatever is an uncaused reality must be a pure act of existence existing through itself. The word pure is important because if there were anything in “the act of existing through itself” different from it, that something just wouldn’t be “the act of existing through itself” and would therefore require a cause to exist. So, whatever exists in virtue of what it is must be the pure act of existing through itself – in short, pure existence itself.
But if pure existence existing through itself were restricted (read: “bounded” by its nature, as humans are bounded to being “ rational animals” by our nature) to any limited or particular way of existing, then everything which exists would have to exist in that one, limited, or particular way of acting. For example, if an electron were the act of pure existence existing through itself – that is, if pure existence itself were restricted to “being an electron*” – then everything which exists would have to exist as an electron.
*For example: Would have to be restricted to acting like an electron; and since electrons don’t have the power to create new realities else could be created; but even hypothetically, if some restricted reality did have the power to create, it would only be able to create “itself”, since existence is restricted to that particular way of acting; but “itself” already exists, so again, nothing else could exist but that particular, finite way of acting.
But clearly this does not have to be the case, nor is it the case. Other things aside electrons exist, including protons, anti-electrons, platypuses, etc. In order, then, to explain “the one and the many” – the fact that many things are different, yet all share in the common theme of existence – whatever exists through itself must be unrestricted; it must be simpler than, inclusive of, and compatible with any particular, finite way of existing. But whatever is unrestricted is unlimited and therefore not bound to existing at any particular place, time, or with any particular set of powers, degree of knowledge, etc. In short, whatever is unrestricted in existence must be a perfect act of existence, having no privations or limits. It just is the fullness of Being itself. So, whatever “existence” is – pure, existence, as such – it must be unrestricted, and yet able to impart to existence in limited and finite ways.
Furthermore, there can only be one such qualitatively perfect being, since in order to have two (or more) there would be some differentiating feature required, causes one perfect act of existence to LACK something the other perfect act of existence had, and therefore, causes that second (or third, fourth, etc.) instance to no longer be a perfect act of existence but limited in some way.
Conclusion: There is one – and only one – perfect, uncaused reality in all of reality. Namely, God.
….
Another way to affirm the existence of God is probabilistically, or through inductive reasoning. Simply take whatever evidence you like, whether from personal experience or scientific investigation and ask: what is the best and simplest (and preferably unifying) explanation of this (or these) experiences.
Here is what I propose. God is the best, simplest, and most unifying explanation for everything from the existence of contingent being (explained above), the universe coming into existence some 13.8 billion years ago (from no prior material state), the fine tuning of physics for the emergence of interactive, intelligent life (explained below), our perception of objective moral values and obligation, religious experiences, mystical experiences, near death experiences, the irreducibility of consciousness to physical processes alone, the general order, stability, and intelligibility of the universe, and – importantly – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Given God’s existence, these are the sorts of things we’d expect. Given atheism, all these experiences and scientific discoveries appear inexplicable or miraculous. God then, not only seems the best inference in terms of explanatory power and depth, but also the simplest and most unifying, making belief in God both reasonable and responsible.
…
- Does the “Big Bang” explain the creation of the universe? And what caused it? God? Or some other mechanism.
Big bang cosmology does not explain the creation of the universe but provides reason for accepting an absolute beginning of physical, space-time reality. Cosmology (we must remember) provides a map of how certain physical events give rise to (or resulted from) other physical events, which, in turn, enables us to understand the physical history of the universe, and to make predictions, etc, but cosmology cannot answer the question of “Why any physical events at all?” For that we need a deeper explanation, along with a different method of investigation.
That said, another argument for God’s existence can be made using modern big bang cosmology. It’s a simple one and goes: 1) anything which begins to exist has a cause; 2) the universe began to exist; 3) the universe has a cause. This is a logically valid argument. So, the only question is, are the premises true? If so, the conclusion follows inescapably.
It seems to me we have solid ground to affirm the premises. Things don’t pop into being without a cause – that is just common sense. Plus, to deny this causal principle is also to deny the principle of sufficient reason (see above). Finally, we have no experience of things popping into existence uncaused and all experience to the contrary: specifically, of things having causes.
The second premise is supported by modern big bang cosmology and is the consensus among astrophysicists; that all space, time, matter and energy essentially “winked” into existence some 13.8 billion years ago. That said, there are further, philosophical arguments which can support the second premise, as well, specifically those aimed at showing the impossibility of an infinite number of things being causally prior to one thing. Not worth getting into now, but certainly these arguments can be made (see causal finitism/grim reaper paradoxes), offering an addition layer of support in affirmation of the second premise.
In this case, we can reasonably and responsibly affirm the conclusion. The matter then is simply recognizing that whatever caused the universe – specifically, all of space, time, matter, and energy – must necessary transcend these limitations. But whatever transcends the material is immaterial, whatever transcends time is eternal, and whatever caused all physical reality is (obviously) extremely powerful, if not omnipotent. This doesn’t give us a complete account of the universe’s Creator (there is still more we’d like to know) but nonetheless we’ve arrived at a foundation to reality starting to sound very much like the traditional account of God.
…
- Does Darwinian Evolution explain the existence of all plants and animals including Man? Or is Man a special creature ?
There is strong evidence (specifically from genetic science) to support the evolution of organic lifeforms. But this in no way conflicts with, or contradicts, the existence of God, nor any core deposit of Catholic-Christian belief. The problem or conflict between (certain) religious belief and evolution isn’t a scientific conflict, but a philosophical conflict; specifically, the conflict is with the theory of evolution + naturalism. Naturalism being a form of atheism. Every religious believer (or at least every Catholic) is free to follow the evidence on evolution, so long as they understand God is ultimately behind the process. Note: evolutionary science speaks nothing of metaphysics, so the assumption of naturalism is purely a philosophical add-on.
Aside, there are good reasons to believe that God is behind the evolutionary process. First, are the independent arguments for God’s existence, as demonstrated above. If these arguments are sound (I believe many are), the matter is settled. Whatever the evidence for evolution, God exists. And so, there is no inherent conflict. Surely, if God wanted to bring life about through an evolutionary process, that’s God’s prerogative. Who are we to protest?
But we also have empirical evidence for God. Most especially, from the “fine-tuning: of physics which has allowed for the emergence of intelligent life. Here’s an important point: evolution depends upon a very special kind of universe; specifically, a universe with stable laws and chemistry. Furthermore, cosmologists have discovered a plethora of “anthropic coincidences;” of certain constants and quantities that appear precisely dialed in – right at the beginning of the universe – for the possibility of intelligent life to emerge. From the initial conditions of entropy (measure of useable energy) to the cosmological constant (governing the universe’s expansion rate) the odds of these constants and quantities being what they are – as opposed to what they could have been – defies imagination.
For example, when describing the initial conditions of entropy, physicist Roger Penrose tells us: “In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes, about 1/1010123.” (The Emperor’s New Mind.)
And, here’s how another physicist (Paul Davies) puts it: “Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth – the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient “coincidences” and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if ‘a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics’.
To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirty-something knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile.
Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn’t exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear’s porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.”
Is it possible there are explanations for these unfathomable coincidences – specifically, for these marks of design – aside, of course, from design itself? Would chance work? What about necessity? These seem to be the only explanatory candidates (chance, necessity, or design) – and, upon reflection, neither chance nor necessity are ultimately tenable. The probabilities against fine-tuning are roughly equivalent to that of a monkey randomly typing the entire corpus of Shakespeare without a single mistake – in one try. Nobody is willing to accept the explanation of such astronomic odds on “chance” alone. Aside, “chance” always presupposes the convergence of some previously ordered, non-chance events. For example, somebody setting a monkey at a typewriter and prompting him. But fine-tuning occurs right at the very beginning of space-time reality, so chance is not really an explanatory option. Furthermore, necessity is ruled out, as well, since these constants and quantities could have been otherwise. There is nothing about these fine-tuning parameters that requires them to be what they are. It seems, then, we are left with just one option: Design. But with design comes a designer – namely, God. (Notice in consideration of the previous arguments for a necessary and eternal Being, the objection of “who designed the designer” would not suffice. Furthermore, for those concerned about “unexplained complexity”, classical theism holds, precisely as a result of such philosophical argumentation, that God must also be non-composite and absolutely simple. God has one idea; the idea of Himself, understanding Himself. Divine simplicity is, surely enough, an enormous topic of its own, but it’s important to note, if only in passing, because it resolves what is frequently an unnecessary hold up and misunderstanding about the nature of God. I recommend Ed Feser’s 5 Proofs and Bernard Lonergan’s Insight for more on the topic.)
Further reading on fine-tuning and development of the argument for God, here and here.
OK, so if evolution depends on a finely tuned universe, and if a finely-tuned universe is the creation of God, then evolution not only does not count as evidence against God’s existence, but points toward God’s existence. Upon this recognition, a believer in God can, and should, follow the evolutionary evidence where it leads, realizing there is no inherent conflict.
However, what evolution cannot by itself explain is the trans-physicality of the human soul. That must be specially created by God. Of course, arguments for the trans-physicality of the soul are required to make such a case, but given a trans-physical aspect of the human soul, there is no way a purely physical process (such as evolution) could produce a trans-physical effect. In that sense, evolution would not be adequate to explain everything about human existence.
Which brings us to the next question.
…
- Is “Human consciousness” a creation of the brain or is it separate and apart of the brain? (Brain, mind/consciousness – duality)
Human consciousness is clearly correlated with the brain (crack a person over the head with a cudgel and they lose consciousness) but not fundamentally reducible to it. In other words, our thoughts are not identical to brain states (axons firing, etc). We can realize this through a simple principle of identity.
If thing A is identical to thing B, then we can never “see” thing A without also “seeing” thing B. For example, if the heads of a coin were identical to the tails of a coin, then we should always “see” the heads whenever we see the tails. But this isn’t the case. We can see the heads without seeing the tails; and we can scratch the heads of a coin without also scratching the tails, etc. Therefore, the heads of the coin is not identical to the tails of the coin, even if they are… well, two sides of the same coin. Because one side has certain properties the other side doesn’t; they are different entities. Connected, but not the same.
The soul and brain are like that. I am directly aware of my thoughts, but I am not directly aware of axons firing. But if my thoughts just are axons firing, then I should, by having direct awareness of my thoughts, have awareness of axons firing. But this isn’t the case. So, clearly, my thoughts =/= neurochemical brain states. The reverse is also true. When looking at the brain from a third person, scientific perspective, we can be aware of the electro-chemical interactions, but never have any idea that correlated with that activity is an act of self-reflective understanding and thinking – namely, human consciousness. The only reason we do, in fact, realize the correlation, is because we ourselves are conscious and have brains, and trust other people when they report their own conscious experiences. The move is inferential, not by way of direct observation. So again, we see that brain states =/= consciousness, even if the two are correlated.
What are we to make of this? Simply that we are hylomorphic, or body-soul composites. We are (important to note) not “ghosts in a machine”, as Descartes would have it, but ensouled bodies. The soul is the form (read: organizing principle/substantial form) of the body, and the human soul is endowed with certain powers, intrinsic to its nature, that enable it (really, us) to immaterial activity, such as conceptual understanding, anticipation of heuristic notions, acts of logical reasoning, etc, the likes of which goes beyond what merely physical process is capable of. We can, for example, grasp universal essences – concepts which transcend any limited, particular instance (such as “triangularity” vs. any particular triangle) – yet, all physical things are particular, limited instances, including brain states. Everything material/physical just is particular – this particular triangle vs that particular triangle, etc. So, if all thoughts were identical to brain states, then all thoughts would be a finite, material instance, and would necessarily be particular; since every material instance is always particular, and never universal; yet, many of our ideas are universal (over and above every particular instance). How can this possibly be? Simply put, the problem is resolved by understanding that our rational soul is capable of immaterial acts of intellection, which transcends physical limitation, even if the soul is (normally) dependent upon its physical embodiment. In short, there is something about us which is not purely physical. (Resource: For a development of this particular argument, see the following presentation by Dr. Edward Feser.)
In addition to the philosophical case for a trans-physical soul, there is further support from medical science, most apparently in cases of near-death experiences. In various, peer-reviewed studies, there are veridical reports of clinically dead patients experiencing sensorial knowledge prior to resuscitation. What makes this evidence remarkable is not just that people who are clinically dead (little to no brain activity; flat EEG, fixed and dilated pupils, etc) are experiencing anything, but they report events and circumstances that are later corroborated by independent investigation. The veridical nature of these experiences would seem to put any possible naturalistic explanation (such as hallucination, etc) beyond reach, strongly supporting the survival of human consciousness after bodily death, which accords with the traditional notion of humans being body/soul compositions.
…
- Is there a “spiritual reality ” to our existence or does the material-physical alone explain our ultimate reality?
The previous response speaks to this question, but a few additional points can be made. There are clearly features of our experience which cannot be adequately explained in the modern “materialist” sense. Consciousness is only one of these phenomena, but so, arguably, are other features of human experience, including morality, mathematics, and logic. Moral values and obligations, for example, are not something a person can distill in a test-tube or investigate under a microscope. So, if morality is an objective feature of the world (which nearly everyone believes it is) it cannot be merely physical, otherwise the physical sciences could speak to it, which they cannot.
Also important to know: all scientific explanation assumes these higher (call them, spiritual, if you like) realities, and so cannot adequately explain them. (Nothing can explain what it presupposes; and science presupposes mathematics, logic, morality, etc.) And certainly the physical sciences cannot explain ultimately reality, since (again) science is inherently etiological: it looks at the equational relationships between physical events, which is especially useful for making predictions and tracing how physical events have unfolded, etc., but cannot speak to the question of why are there any physical events at all, which is an ontological question. Not only is the latter question an extremely important question to ask but perhaps the most exquisite of all, for which we employ philosophy (more specifically metaphysics) rather than science, to answer.
…
- What happens after we die? Is it eternal annihilation? (we just no longer exist) or do we continue to exist in some form (spiritual or consciousness )
Purely philosophical arguments have been offered for the immateriality and immorality of the soul, which is further supported in studies of near-death experiences. But if one is seeking a more robust account of the afterlife, we must consider the claims of Christ, who promised (for anyone who wants it) an eternal friendship with God.
…
- What will be the “END” of the universe? Eternal expansion to nothingness?
The current scientific prediction is the universe will eventually suffer thermodynamic heat death. This is disparaging for naturalists, for it seems everything is inevitably doomed to oblivion; such that no real, difference could ever be made. Everything ends in lifeless expansion. But for religious believers, the physical universe is not only not all there is, but many (including Catholics) also hold to the belief that God will renew creation, which, of course, the current scientific account doesn’t consider. But so long as there are good reasons to believe Catholicism is true, then we can simply amend the scientific account with what’s been revealed by God.
…
BONUS 8. What is a “BLACK HOLE”? And what is the eventual end to a BLACK HOLE?
Honestly, your guess is as good as mine. But here’s what I’d say about black holes, aside from their being awesome. Much of life is a mystery. There are things that happen to us and around us that we don’t understand. But mysteries are not, nor need be, objections to religious belief. In fact, much of religious belief requires accepting mysteries based on prior, good reasons for acceptance. (For example, the Eucharist or the Trinity.) So, black holes are mysterious, but what isn’t mysterious is God’s existence. We have converging and convincing arguments for a time-less, space-less, immaterial, necessarily existing Creator of everything else that exists. Because of this, we should always look at what is unclear – whether the prevalence of evil and suffering; or just every day, beguiling phenomena, like black holes — in light of what is clear. If God exists and is omniscient, we can be confident there must be some reason for why the world has the features it does, and not some other. We can believe that, and should believe that, even if we don’t know what those reasons are. In fact, given the prior evidence we have for God, it’d be foolish not to assume there are good reasons for the mysteries of life. The point? Black holes are mysterious, and certainly intriguing. They exist because God, for whatever reason, created them. So, we should continue investigating black holes in our quest for understanding and continue to marvel in the mystery as we do so.
…
The Pat Flynn Show
If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE.
Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!