Does Romans 1:18-20 create doubt for atheists?

[AgnosticBoy]

Many Christians interpret Romans 1:18 to mean that deep down we all know that God exists.

Romans 1:19-20

19 because that which is known about God is evident [n]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21

In my view, the apostle Paul goes too far in claiming that non-believers know that the Christian God exists. However, if I'm to look for any validity in his statement, I find that I do have this feeling and/or need for something transcendent. That certainly is not enough to point to anything as specific as the God of the Bible, but it does point to spirituality, in general. One book that touches on this idea is The God Gene by Dean Hamer. Here's one review:

In Hamer's argument, spiritual experiences and religion are nearly universal human attributes. Hamer measures spirituality on a scale of 'self-transcendence', or the ability to see beyond oneself, a concept first introduced by psychologist Robert Cloninger. He draws a sharp distinction between spirituality, which is a personality trait that some of us have to a greater or lesser extent than others, and religion or belief in a particular god, which is a culturally transmitted expression of spirituality.

Hamer admits in his introduction that the volume is misnamed; he isn't talking about genes for being a god, but rather about those that predispose us to religion-neutral spiritual beliefs, experiences and interpretations. Spirituality is not controlled by the product of a single gene but is complex, involving many genes, each making a small contribution to the phenotype, combined with a very strong environmental influence.

I really want to know the following:
1. Did this feeling or sense or need for something greater play any role in leading you to religion or spirituality?
2. For the non-believer or atheist, are you aware of this feeling? Does it lead you to doubt atheism? (in my case, my doubt does not lead me to believe, but instead it drives me to search even more).

[brunumb]

Have you ever seen something that was capable of "causing" space and time themselves?

Have you ever seen something that was capable of "causing" space and time?

God is just an invented answer.

[JoeyKnothead]

Trouble is, no one else has come up with a better explanation...

Where data doesn't support firm conclusions, "better" is a subjective term, dependent on how proud one is of that explanation.

"I don't know" is then, the "better" explanation.

I hate to break it to you, but "I don't know" isn't an explanation, it's an admission that you don't have one.

That's why I quotated "better". My point is that in the absence of confirmatory data, regarding the ethereal, we're all stuck to subjective evaluations of "better".

Thus, for me, "I don't know" is the "better" explanation, cause it helps me realize there's some stuff that can likely never be known.

Since IBE is one of the means we can use to reach firm conclusions - particularly in cases like this, where one position has all the explanatory power, and the other position has none - I don't see how you could possibly support the idea that "the data doesn't support firm conclusions."

It only has the power of your subjective evaluation of it being a "better" explanation.

"God did it", if only to me, is as "better" an explanation as the grandgirl there sheepishly declaring a ghost smeared that ice cream around her mouth.

Stuff acts according to its properties, and that's how such stuff comes to be.

What stuff?

Any.

Which properties?

Any related to that any above, and specifically to those you mentioned. But really, any properties related to anything.

You're the one who insists on everything having some kind of mechanism, so the burden is on you to show me how it happened.

I merely note that it's reasonable to conclude there's stuff, and reasonable to conclude that stuff acts according to its properties. I make no claims beyond that in this matter.

Have you ever seen something that was capable of "causing" space and time themselves?

No.

Have you?

3. That Source is less dissimilar to a mind/person than it is to anything else in our experience.

Why must this be the case?

Because abstract objects, tractable universal order, fine tuning, the beginning of the universe, consciousness, and objective moral values/duties seem to demand an explanation in terms of something more than matter in motion. The only things we experience that any philosopher of repute has considered to be "more than matter" are minds. The inference appears justified. Though, I can go into more detail for each line of evidence as to why this is the case.

To "seem" is not to be.

This site doesn't require anyone present any form of counter to your above assertions, but does kinda expect the claimant to support their claims.

Given that none can show a god exists, the "better explanation" then is we lack sufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.

What do you mean "no one can show that God exists"?

No- not nary
One- a soul
Can- is capable of
Show- putting truth to the claim
A- one, or one of many
That- in this matter
God- the invisible thing up in the sky that fusses over the least little thing
Exists- is real, not a product of imagination

Many dictionaries are available in bookstores, libraries, and on the internet, as well, translations.

Were you expecting to be able to put Him in a test tube, take a tissue sample, give Him an X-ray, instruct Him to perform some arbitrary task in a contrived social environment, or some such?

I don't believe a god exists to stuff into anything but the imagination.

Because no intellectually serious theist...

That reads like a bit of an ad him on some folks, and an oxymoron to others.

...of the past 2500 years would have predicted that such would be possible. How, then, does the confirmation of the prediction (nothing we can put in a test tube, etc. corresponds to God) raise the burden of proof on the people who have been insisting on it all along?

Beats me. I merely pointed out nobody can show a god exists (please refer back to defintions I so graciously supplied above).

"I don't know" ain't such a shameful thing to say. What man is so wise they can tell what their pretty thing's gonna be upset about in the coming days and weeks?

It is when the entire raison d'etre of your philosophical position is that "science" has "eliminated" the "need" to invoke God.

You really need to get that faulty concluder checked.

Nowhere in my comments have a stated, or even implied science eliminated any need to invoke god.

As I note many theists reject scientifically supported notions.

[David the apologist]

Since IBE is one of the means we can use to reach firm conclusions - particularly in cases like this, where one position has all the explanatory power, and the other position has none - I don't see how you could possibly support the idea that "the data doesn't support firm conclusions."

It only has the power of your subjective evaluation of it being a "better" explanation.

"God did it", if only to me, is as "better" an explanation as the grandgirl there sheepishly declaring a ghost smeared that ice cream around her mouth.

So you deny that such things as explanatory power, explanatory scope, a priori plausibility, etc. give us an objective metric by which one could declare one explanation better to another?

Stuff acts according to its properties, and that's how such stuff comes to be.

What stuff?

Any.

Which properties?

Any related to that any above, and specifically to those you mentioned. But really, any properties related to anything.

You're the one who insists on everything having some kind of mechanism, so the burden is on you to show me how it happened.

I merely note that it's reasonable to conclude there's stuff, and reasonable to conclude that stuff acts according to its properties. I make no claims beyond that in this matter.

Great. We agree on that. What does it have to do with any of the lines of evidence I have listed?

Have you ever seen something that was capable of "causing" space and time themselves?

No.

How about something capable of "tinkering with the laws of physics," in the words of Fred Hoyle?

Have you?

Recall that my point - which you initially contested - was that the Source of reality had to be radically different from anything in our experience.

Since I view the answer "no" to the question "have you ever seen anything that could cause space and time?" to be confirmatory of my point, the answer to your question should be readily inferred.

3. That Source is less dissimilar to a mind/person than it is to anything else in our experience.

Why must this be the case?

Because abstract objects, tractable universal order, fine tuning, the beginning of the universe, consciousness, and objective moral values/duties seem to demand an explanation in terms of something more than matter in motion. The only things we experience that any philosopher of repute has considered to be "more than matter" are minds. The inference appears justified. Though, I can go into more detail for each line of evidence as to why this is the case.

To "seem" is not to be.

Would you deny that any of the above require an explanation in terms of something more than matter in motion?

This site doesn't require anyone present any form of counter to your above assertions, but does kinda expect the claimant to support their claims.

Given that none can show a god exists, the "better explanation" then is we lack sufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.

What do you mean "no one can show that God exists"?

No- not nary
One- a soul
Can- is capable of
Show- putting truth to the claim
A- one, or one of many
That- in this matter
God- the invisible thing up in the sky that fusses over the least little thing
Exists- is real, not a product of imagination

Disregarding the absurd inadequacy of your definition of "God," how, on your view, does one "put truth to a claim"?

Were you expecting to be able to put Him in a test tube, take a tissue sample, give Him an X-ray, instruct Him to perform some arbitrary task in a contrived social environment, or some such?

I don't believe a god exists to stuff into anything but the imagination.

You're dodging the question.

If God existed, would you expect to be able to subject Him to scientific scrutiny?

Note that the question is a hypothetical so saying anything about "absence of evidence" or "God being imaginary" is a red herring fallacy.

Because no intellectually serious theist...

That reads like a bit of an ad him [sic] on some folks, and an oxymoron to others.

If you think that theists can't be intellectually serious, then not only are you ignorant, you're not in a position to be able to complain about other people being subjected to ad hominem attacks.

...of the past 2500 years would have predicted that such would be possible. How, then, does the confirmation of the prediction (nothing we can put in a test tube, etc. corresponds to God) raise the burden of proof on the people who have been insisting on it all along?

Beats me. I merely pointed out nobody can show a god exists (please refer back to defintions I so graciously supplied above).

You mean the stupid one for "God" and the vague one for "show"?

Nowhere in my comments have a stated, or even implied science eliminated any need to invoke god.

Then why are you so intent on denying that the features of the world I have mentioned constitute evidence for God's existence?

[TRANSPONDER]

It is a basic fallacy 'I can't imagine how all this wonder came to be, so a huge invisible human must have made it'. Basic 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

As has been ably noted elsewhere, an inference to the best explanation is not a "fallacy."

You might want to contend that this particular explanation is unwarranted or ill-founded, but that is not the same thing as a fallacy.

Of course the case for 'gpd' (or an intelligent designer) has to be shown NOT the 'best explanation'. If so then positing as an explanation makes the claim a fallacy. That is, putting into an Unknown an explanation without valid support.

Trouble is, no one else has come up with a better explanation for (just to name a few examples) the existence of anything, abstract objects, the fact that there is tractable order in the universe, the beginning of the universe's existence, the fine tuning of fundamental constants and initial conditions to a degree well beyond that required for intelligent life (initial entropy of the universe, anyone? We only needed a single supercluster at most, why is everything so un-entropic?), the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the existence of objective moral values and duties... the list goes on and on.

All of these considerations should lead us to the following conclusions:

1. There is a fundamental "Source" of reality as we know it.
2. That Source is extremely different from the things in our experience.
3. That Source is less dissimilar to a mind/person than it is to anything else in our experience.

Unless, of course, you have an explanation for the above listed data that has equal explanatory power and can provide the same unificatory power as God. If you have to write uncashed checks for half the stuff on the list ("science will explain it eventually, it always does"), use a multiverse for fine tuning, reverse the arrow of time at at the point of minimum expansion to get a "big bounce" instead of a geodesically incomplete "big bang," and declare everything else to be "brute facts," then it's pretty obvious that your position doesn't have the same level of explanatory power and scope that Theism does.

The trouble is the 'god' does Not have explanatory power. There is no mechanism. God 'does' it. I could as well say 'nature' does it and that has equal explanatory power. Your data is simply gaps in knowledge. There is no explanation for how or why a Creator does this other that it does. You also have the problem of the origins of this creator. Who or what decided to create a creator, decide what it would be and what powers it would have, what it was made of how it would work? It doesn't even have the half explanations that the big bang, innate power in what seems to be nothing and the basic of quantum foam and the Higgs boson as at least a better explanation than god and a magic wand. The bank of science has paid out in the past and deserved some credit for solvency. Theism has turned out to have nothing but bounced cheques.

It is a basic fallacy 'I can't imagine how all this wonder came to be, so a huge invisible human must have made it'. Basic 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

As has been ably noted elsewhere, an inference to the best explanation is not a "fallacy."

You might want to contend that this particular explanation is unwarranted or ill-founded, but that is not the same thing as a fallacy.

Of course the case for 'gpd' (or an intelligent designer) has to be shown NOT the 'best explanation'.

That is irrelevant. Just because you don't think an explanation is the best one doesn't change the form of the argument.

An inference to the best explanation is a type of argument.

If so then positing as an explanation makes the claim a fallacy. That is, putting into an Unknown an explanation without valid support.

That is simply confused. Just because an explanation lacks sufficient support does not, in and of itself, make it a "fallacy."

There are lots of explanation out there that I don't think are the best or I think are ill-founded. For example, the explanation that Donald Trump lost the 2020 U.S. presidential election because Democrats stole it is a very poorly supported explanation. Nevertheless it is not a "fallacy."

you refute your own argument because causes of thimngs that are known have not been shown to needs a god. Unknowns are just that and evidence neither way and posit God as the default because no other explanation is known does not make God the default. That's the fallacy.

To cite the election, the evidence is known and does not support a claim that the democreats 'stole' it. There is no Gap without an explanation that someone can claim is a gap for some unsupported hypothesis, so the two arguments are not alike.

[JoeyKnothead]

So you deny that such things as explanatory power, explanatory scope, a priori plausibility, etc. give us an objective metric by which one could declare one explanation better to another?

My position is that in the paucity of confirmatory data for an explanation, "better" will be in the mind of the beholder.

I merely note that it's reasonable to conclude there's stuff, and reasonable to conclude that stuff acts according to its properties. I make no claims beyond that in this matter.

Great. We agree on that. What does it have to do with any of the lines of evidence I have listed?

I see you drawing faulty conclusions from data, and little evidence in support thereof.

Have you ever seen something that was capable of "causing" space and time themselves?

No.

How about something capable of "tinkering with the laws of physics," in the words of Fred Hoyle?

I make no claims regarding that which I don't claim.

If you wish to carry on about that, have at it.

Because abstract objects, tractable universal order, fine tuning, the beginning of the universe, consciousness, and objective moral values/duties seem to demand an explanation in terms of something more than matter in motion. The only things we experience that any philosopher of repute has considered to be "more than matter" are minds. The inference appears justified. Though, I can go into more detail for each line of evidence as to why this is the case.

To "seem" is not to be.

Would you deny that any of the above require an explanation in terms of something more than matter in motion?

Not if the explanation is faulty, no.

In that regard, it's my contention religious belief is built on attempts to explain the unexplainable. As I note scientific study can explain a bunch of stuff pretty good.

I don't believe a god exists to stuff into anything but the imagination.

You're dodging the question.

That you don't like an answer is scant evidence of one dodging a question.

Mayhaps you'd ask for clarification when you become confused.

If God existed, would you expect to be able to subject Him to scientific scrutiny?

Beats me.

What's the properties of this "if" god? Is one of those properties "entirely dependent on the human imagination?

Note that the question is a hypothetical so saying anything about "absence of evidence" or "God being imaginary" is a red herring fallacy.

And in your hypothetical, you want me to "play along" without first offering any properties by which we might consider your "if" god.

"If God's real, well there we go" is not a compelling argument.

Because no intellectually serious theist...

That reads like a bit of an ad him [sic] on some folks, and an oxymoron to others.

If you think that theists can't be intellectually serious, then not only are you ignorant, you're not in a position to be able to complain about other people being subjected to ad hominem attacks.

Good googly moogly, by declaring "intellectually honest theists" there's the implication some of em ain't. That's the ad hom to which I refer. I prefer to think folks're doing the best they can with what they've got.

As to ignorant, I ain't the one claiming there's a god I can't show exists, only to hafta resort to the most facile hypotheticalizations in order to do it.

...of the past 2500 years would have predicted that such would be possible. How, then, does the confirmation of the prediction (nothing we can put in a test tube, etc. corresponds to God) raise the burden of proof on the people who have been insisting on it all along?

Beats me. I merely pointed out nobody can show a god exists (please refer back to defintions I so graciously supplied above).

You mean the stupid one for "God" and the vague one for "show"?

Now that you mention it, yes, I think your god concept is, as you say, "stupid", and "vague".

Nowhere in my comments have a stated, or even implied science eliminated any need to invoke god.

Then why are you so intent on denying that the features of the world I have mentioned constitute evidence for God's existence?

Cause I don't see your argument compelling, and that what 'evidence' you provide in support thereof doesn't support your conclusions.

It has less, to nothing to do with science, and everything to do with your weak arguments.

[David the apologist]

It is a basic fallacy 'I can't imagine how all this wonder came to be, so a huge invisible human must have made it'. Basic 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

As has been ably noted elsewhere, an inference to the best explanation is not a "fallacy."

You might want to contend that this particular explanation is unwarranted or ill-founded, but that is not the same thing as a fallacy.

Of course the case for 'gpd' (or an intelligent designer) has to be shown NOT the 'best explanation'. If so then positing as an explanation makes the claim a fallacy. That is, putting into an Unknown an explanation without valid support.

Trouble is, no one else has come up with a better explanation for (just to name a few examples) the existence of anything, abstract objects, the fact that there is tractable order in the universe, the beginning of the universe's existence, the fine tuning of fundamental constants and initial conditions to a degree well beyond that required for intelligent life (initial entropy of the universe, anyone? We only needed a single supercluster at most, why is everything so un-entropic?), the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the existence of objective moral values and duties... the list goes on and on.

All of these considerations should lead us to the following conclusions:

1. There is a fundamental "Source" of reality as we know it.
2. That Source is extremely different from the things in our experience.
3. That Source is less dissimilar to a mind/person than it is to anything else in our experience.

Unless, of course, you have an explanation for the above listed data that has equal explanatory power and can provide the same unificatory power as God. If you have to write uncashed checks for half the stuff on the list ("science will explain it eventually, it always does"), use a multiverse for fine tuning, reverse the arrow of time at at the point of minimum expansion to get a "big bounce" instead of a geodesically incomplete "big bang," and declare everything else to be "brute facts," then it's pretty obvious that your position doesn't have the same level of explanatory power and scope that Theism does.

The trouble is the 'god' does Not have explanatory power.

Ah, so a personal or quasi-personal Agent of immense power wouldn't be capable of explaining anything if It existed?

There is no mechanism. God 'does' it.

There is no "mechanism" that couples the electromagnetic field to the electron field. The two just exchange energy and information, and that's that. Would you say that quantum electrodynamics is therefore nonexplanatory?

You also have the problem of the origins of this creator. Who or what decided to create a creator,

No one did, assuming you are using "Creator" to mean "the Ultimate Ground of all being." If something/someone created It, then It wouldn't be the ground of all being.

decide what it would be and what powers it would have,

One would expect that that would be determined by the nature of the Creator, Whatever It turns out to be.

what it was made of

What is energy made of? What is justice made of? Not everything is made of something.

how it would work?

Not every interaction requires a mechanism. Some can simply be fundamental.

The bank of science has paid out in the past and deserved some credit for solvency.

I disagree. The Early Moderns shuffled all of the debt (things science couldn't explain) into a single company (consciousness), which they then sold to another conglomerate (ie, they bit the bullet and accepted dualism).

Science has since come under new ownership, placed itself in debts that it wouldn't have had without its own action, some (but not all) of which it has paid off, and is currently in the process of negotiations to buy back the holding company its former owners were so desperate to get rid of.

I see no reason to think that the whole scheme won't come crashing down like the scam that it is.

[Difflugia]

"I don't know" is then, the "better" explanation.

I hate to break it to you, but "I don't know" isn't an explanation, it's an admission that you don't have one.

The difference between "I don't know" and "a hypothetical, magical being that can do anything" is cosmetic at best.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is a basic fallacy 'I can't imagine how all this wonder came to be, so a huge invisible human must have made it'. Basic 'god of the gaps' fallacy.

As has been ably noted elsewhere, an inference to the best explanation is not a "fallacy."

You might want to contend that this particular explanation is unwarranted or ill-founded, but that is not the same thing as a fallacy.

Of course the case for 'gpd' (or an intelligent designer) has to be shown NOT the 'best explanation'. If so then positing as an explanation makes the claim a fallacy. That is, putting into an Unknown an explanation without valid support.

Trouble is, no one else has come up with a better explanation for (just to name a few examples) the existence of anything, abstract objects, the fact that there is tractable order in the universe, the beginning of the universe's existence, the fine tuning of fundamental constants and initial conditions to a degree well beyond that required for intelligent life (initial entropy of the universe, anyone? We only needed a single supercluster at most, why is everything so un-entropic?), the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, the existence of objective moral values and duties... the list goes on and on.

All of these considerations should lead us to the following conclusions:

1. There is a fundamental "Source" of reality as we know it.
2. That Source is extremely different from the things in our experience.
3. That Source is less dissimilar to a mind/person than it is to anything else in our experience.

Unless, of course, you have an explanation for the above listed data that has equal explanatory power and can provide the same unificatory power as God. If you have to write uncashed checks for half the stuff on the list ("science will explain it eventually, it always does"), use a multiverse for fine tuning, reverse the arrow of time at at the point of minimum expansion to get a "big bounce" instead of a geodesically incomplete "big bang," and declare everything else to be "brute facts," then it's pretty obvious that your position doesn't have the same level of explanatory power and scope that Theism does.

The trouble is the 'god' does Not have explanatory power.

Ah, so a personal or quasi-personal Agent of immense power wouldn't be capable of explaining anything if It existed?

That is incoherent. A 'god' could explain anything it wanted if it existed (which is perhaps why it ddoesn't() but an explanatory mechanism for the claim for a creative intelligence is not there. It just 'does it'.

There is no mechanism. God 'does' it.

There is no "mechanism" that couples the electromagnetic field to the electron field. The two just exchange energy and information, and that's that. Would you say that quantum electrodynamics is therefore nonexplanatory?

The electron -stuff Is the explanation for electric enery. what you refer to is an unknown. Science may explain it or may not. but that an explanatory mechanism for energy exists is more than 'God'. Which explains nothing.

You also have the problem of the origins of this creator. Who or what decided to create a creator,

No one did, assuming you are using "Creator" to mean "the Ultimate Ground of all being." If something/someone created It, then It wouldn't be the ground of all being.

decide what it would be and what powers it would have,

One would expect that that would be determined by the nature of the Creator, Whatever It turns out to be.

Well that's drawing on a Theistic bank account that is empty and no mistake.

what it was made of

What is energy made of? What is justice made of? Not everything is made of something.[/quote]

Energy is matter doing stuff just as matter is energy not doing stuff. Justice is a human instinct based concept. Biological science is likely to explain what makes it just as energy is explained by particle physics. Just because you don't know doesn't mean that nobody knows or - more importantly- can be expected to know or even more importantly still that material/physical Natural explanation are the default and not supernatyural. The bank of heaven is empty.

how it would work?

Not every interaction requires a mechanism. Some can simply be fundamental.

Even if so something would have to happen. The whole basis of the cosmic origins argument (Kalam) is that everything has a cause. To posit a god has no 'cause' or explanation of origin.

The bank of science has paid out in the past and deserved some credit for solvency.

I disagree. The Early Moderns shuffled all of the debt (things science couldn't explain) into a single company (consciousness), which they then sold to another conglomerate (ie, they bit the bullet and accepted dualism).

Science has since come under new ownership, placed itself in debts that it wouldn't have had without its own action, some (but not all) of which it has paid off, and is currently in the process of negotiations to buy back the holding company its former owners were so desperate to get rid of.

I see no reason to think that the whole scheme won't come crashing down like the scam that it is.
[/quote]

Since you like a financial analogous terminology. Science has dug the gold and silver that is the basis for a solid bank that is a global currency. Theism simply sold off fake banknotes that it called 'science supports Theism'. Such an example being your 'consciousness' is in the bank of Theism rather than the bank of science. Even if all the accounts were combined in one and philosophy is speculating in the market with 'dualism' (which I think will crash in time) it is paying nothing to the bank of God which is simply signing dud cheques while saying 'don't trust the bank of science. It has no idea how economics really works or what will happen to the market in the future'.

[TRANSPONDER]

Missed this one (which screwed up the quotes I should have checked)

"No one did, assuming you are using "Creator" to mean "the Ultimate Ground of all being." If something/someone created It, then It wouldn't be the ground of all being." No I don't. I mean - and so do you - an Intelligent creator. Of course the 'ground of all being' logically has to end somewhere, because infinite regression is considered not a feasible hypothesis. But Something from nothing or Always existed is just as much a ground of all being. Theism requires a planning intent to create. Intelligence just requires more to account for in saying 'what made it?' If you say God made the intelligent creator (which is probably not what you are saying' you still have the same problem. Cosmic origins in fact is an unknown and no evidence for an Intelligent creator. It is no more than a gap for God that is still open.

[brunumb]

If God existed, would you expect to be able to subject Him to scientific scrutiny?

If God is responsible for my existence then I most certainly would expect him to be available for scrutiny. Why shouldn't he be up front about who and what he is? It seems that it is alright that in the past he could play mind games with numerous poor schmucks such as Abraham or Job and get involved in numerous wranglings with human beings, but we can't expect him to be completely open with us now. His alleged intermediaries are busy making tired excuses for why God is hidden, while all the time it is more likely just a cover for a God who isn't really there.