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).

[David the apologist]

Can't believe I missed this from the Knothead.

I can't figure me out a way to respond to this lying sack of dog knuckles.

If I'm wrong about something, prove it. Otherwise, retract your claim that I'm a liar.

My post history shows I'm pretty good about answering questions put to me - wrong or right.

Your history in this thread neatly disproves that.

It's just I ain't got me any tools to try to respectfully respond to this lying bag of "if".

Seems to me like you got scared when someone questioned the skeptical tropes you rely on, and resorted to ad-hom instead of actually engaging.

I know, "seems ain't is." But the only tools I have are "seems," and you're doing a lot of seeming.

[David the apologist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

Let's boil it down to what I regard as the central argument. I expect a clear and concise (insofar as it is possible to be concise) response.

1. If God exists, we wouldn't expect to have direct scientific confirmation of His existence the way that, eg, we have direct confirmation of the existence of the Higgs field.

2. If the absence of a certain kind of evidence is entailed by a thesis, then the absence of that kind of evidence cannot count as evidence against the thesis.

3. Therefore, being unable to scientifically confirm God's existence the way that we confirmed, eg, the existence of the Higgs field cannot count as evidence against God's existence.

Do you think that the argument is invalid or unsound?

If so, what part of it do you dispute?

If not, why do you keep insisting on "confirmation" of God's existence before we can infer that He is the best explanation? What kind of "confirmation" do you mean if not direct scientific confirmation?

[William]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #1]

1. Did this feeling or sense or need for something greater play any role in leading you to religion or spirituality?

For me the accepting of this 'something more than myself' idea was a natural part of my overall human experience from as early as I consciously remember.

I took it to available places - such as Christianity and spirituality and materialism and found no connect therein. Whatever 'it' is, it responds unexcitedly to structured organized image-inducing say-so's, and floats aloof of such attempts to corral and/or deny that it exists.

In more recent times I have come to understand it as the overall 'mind' of the universe which 'suffered' fragmentation, becoming 'minds' within its own creation, but is also involved in a defragging process of said minds, and partially succeeds in relation to religion/spirituality but the work continues in relation to the next phase individuate consciousnesses experience as part of this defragging continuum.

As PK commented;
[Replying to Purple Knight in post #28]

I test as a sociopath and even I still have this vague void that wants something transcendent.

This is a sincere acknowledgement of an internal thing happening which is positively connected with that which is of the mind.

When I read it, I immediately understood it to be something intuitive which is also something that the current reality experience cannot permanently provide for the individual as the 'void' represents death as surely as transcendence represents continuation afterwards.

A mind in such position has far greater chance of gracefully moving into the next phase [after dying from this one] than a mind which has chosen to believe there is no next phase which will be experienced.

The experience will be far less shocking.

The 'gene' is really the mind. Minds are fragmentations of the overall mind and in this, whether we realize it [to whatever extent] or deny it, we are all part of it.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

Let's boil it down to what I regard as the central argument. I expect a clear and concise (insofar as it is possible to be concise) response.

1. If God exists, we wouldn't expect to have direct scientific confirmation of His existence the way that, eg, we have direct confirmation of the existence of the Higgs field.

2. If the absence of a certain kind of evidence is entailed by a thesis, then the absence of that kind of evidence cannot count as evidence against the thesis.

3. Therefore, being unable to scientifically confirm God's existence the way that we confirmed, eg, the existence of the Higgs field cannot count as evidence against God's existence.

Do you think that the argument is invalid or unsound?

If so, what part of it do you dispute?

If not, why do you keep insisting on "confirmation" of God's existence before we can infer that He is the best explanation? What kind of "confirmation" do you mean if not direct scientific confirmation?

The flaw in the above argument is that it adds up to nothing more than excuses as to why there is is no valid evidence for a god. Every time there is a problem (and you know that ID has tried to provide the evidence that should be there, but has failed) the god claim says: 'Oh well, evidently god does do that, it just wishes everything to happen apparently naturally'.

The only claim - and I have never denied this - is that Cosmic Origins is so unknown that a 'god' of some sort is a half -way creditable claim. I still maintain, however that it multiplies logical entities more than a 'natural' origin -claim.

So the logical fallacy is a claim for an entity based on no valid evidence. Logically the default theory should be on the natural (material/physical processes) for which we do have evidence.

[David the apologist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

Let's boil it down to what I regard as the central argument. I expect a clear and concise (insofar as it is possible to be concise) response.

1. If God exists, we wouldn't expect to have direct scientific confirmation of His existence the way that, eg, we have direct confirmation of the existence of the Higgs field.

2. If the absence of a certain kind of evidence is entailed by a thesis, then the absence of that kind of evidence cannot count as evidence against the thesis.

3. Therefore, being unable to scientifically confirm God's existence the way that we confirmed, eg, the existence of the Higgs field cannot count as evidence against God's existence.

Do you think that the argument is invalid or unsound?

If so, what part of it do you dispute?

If not, why do you keep insisting on "confirmation" of God's existence before we can infer that He is the best explanation? What kind of "confirmation" do you mean if not direct scientific confirmation?

The flaw in the above argument is that it adds up to nothing more than excuses as to why there is is no valid evidence for a god.

From the context, this constitutes a claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that matters.

Do you have proof of that claim?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]

So the logical fallacy is a claim for an entity based on no valid evidence. Logically the default theory should be on the natural (material/physical processes) for which we do have evidence.

I find this to be unreasonable reasoning as it stipulates something called "valid evidence" as a criteria for non-materialist presentation while allowing materialists to simply present 'evidence'.

What isn't explained is what one means by 'valid'. The evidence is the same, therefore the validity must be referring to something else which is unknown as evidence.

In this case the protest is that there is no 'valid evidence' for the existence of an entity-mind behind creation - but what is this 'valid evidence' which is not being presented to the materialist?

The truth is, that neither "This reality is caused by a mind" nor "This reality is a mindless causation" offer any 'valid' evidence either way.

Thus, the truth is valid regarding this ongoing dilemma. It appears to be something which will not be [easily] resolved by simply examining the evidence of said reality, for some see it the one way and others see it differently.

Materialists have jumped the gun in their celebration of being in the correct position [lacking acceptance in the possibility in the idea that there is a mind behind this reality existence.]

[Purple Knight]

From the context, this constitutes a claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that matters.

Do you have proof of that claim?

It's not about what kinds of evidence exist, it's about what kinds of evidence are universal enough that the other person really should accept it.

I've had experiences people would never believe if I told them. I know these things to be true but I won't try to convince others until I can replicate and control.

There has been a lot of bad press for reductionism and the Western scientific way as the only way to obtain knowledge and I admit that bad press is mostly justified. These are not the only ways to obtain knowledge but they far surpass as a mechanism for setting up a fair playing field for different ideas. If your ideas lose on that playing field that doesn't mean they are wrong or even likely to be wrong, it just means you haven't shown the other guy that they're right. It's about what he sees, and what he ought to accept.

Even religious people have said, yes, fine, you have a revelation, but that's a revelation for you.

[brunumb]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

Let's boil it down to what I regard as the central argument. I expect a clear and concise (insofar as it is possible to be concise) response.

1. If God exists, we wouldn't expect to have direct scientific confirmation of His existence the way that, eg, we have direct confirmation of the existence of the Higgs field.

2. If the absence of a certain kind of evidence is entailed by a thesis, then the absence of that kind of evidence cannot count as evidence against the thesis.

3. Therefore, being unable to scientifically confirm God's existence the way that we confirmed, eg, the existence of the Higgs field cannot count as evidence against God's existence.

Do you think that the argument is invalid or unsound?

If so, what part of it do you dispute?

If not, why do you keep insisting on "confirmation" of God's existence before we can infer that He is the best explanation? What kind of "confirmation" do you mean if not direct scientific confirmation?

If God exists, why shouldn't we expect to have direct scientific confirmation of His existence? Is it just because God has inbuilt into its definition that it can't be observed? Funny how people make a lot of the attributes of a God that can't be observed. The imagination is very useful in creating loopholes to shore up religious beliefs.

Until the existence of God is on the table it can't be used to explain anything. It is somewhat circular to suggest that God must be some alleged first cause and then use that as confirmation of God's existence.

[brunumb]

From the context, this constitutes a claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that matters.

The scientific method gives us the most reliable means of sorting the real from the imaginary. The religious try to discredit it in an way possible in order to sneak their unsupported claims, superstition and magic in through the back door. If you have any better methods please present them.

[historia]

From the context, this constitutes a claim that scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence that matters.

The scientific method gives us the most reliable means of sorting the real from the imaginary. The religious try to discredit it in an way possible in order to sneak their unsupported claims, superstition and magic in through the back door. If you have any better methods please present them.

I don't think the argument here is that there is anything wrong with the scientific method, per se. It's just not the only way we can know things about the world.

If, for example, I want to know about an event in human history -- say, George Washington crossing the Delaware -- the scientific method provides no means for me to do so. I can't directly observe this past event or recreate it to run an experiment to verify what happened. I have to use a different method for my inquiry, the historical method.