Thus, the person who fails to acknowledge God knows the truth of His existence, but refuses to accept it. This teaching leads to a couple of different conclusions. First, the Bible teaches that contrary to Prof. Drange's assertion, even the implanting of belief of the propositions of Set P does not necessarily lead to Situation S. The Bible teaches that God has written the knowledge of the truth of God in our hearts (Romans 1:18-20; Romans 2:14-15), so God has, in fact, done the very thing that Prof. Drange contends God ought to have done. Second, the verses show that God has given people the "free will" to "suppress the truth by their wickedness." (Romans 1:18) People, knowing the truth about God clearly, "neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him . . . ." (Romans 1:21) If it is the people who choose to ignore the obvious truth of God and suppress it, isn't that a clear, undeniable statement that people can choose against following God? Thus, I contend that Romans 1 and 2 not only confirms that the Free Will Defense is valid, but it shows that even with the direct implantation of the truth into each person (one of Prof. Drange's proposed solutions that God could have used to have people accept Set P), some (even many) reject the truth through their free will. But what about the skeptic who contends that God's existence is not "clearly seen"? Such people argue that they do not