Who is correct, Paul or the Philosophers?

[Tcg]

The following verses are often presented by some Christians as evidence that everyone knows God exists:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

There are however many Christian theists who rely on and present in debate one or more of the many so-called Arguments for the Existence of God.

Would these arguments be needed if Paul is right in his claim from Romans 1?


Tcg

[Wootah]

There are many proofs of God why would any two proofs, in particular, be at odds with each other?

Paul argues from creation and fine-tuning argument ... fine tunes the argument.

[Tcg]

There are many proofs of God why would any two proofs, in particular, be at odds with each other?

Paul argues from creation and fine-tuning argument ... fine tunes the argument.

I didn't mention only two proofs and Paul doesn't in any way mention fine tuning. Do you have any other way to support your claim of a false dichotomy, or shall we dismiss it? The answer is yes, we shall.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

...But science does have a very good track record of ...

...being wrong often.

There was no global flood
Tyre was rebuilt,
There was no Passover release custom

To which I'd add 'what we can 'know' There was no Bethlehem birth.
Daniel was not written in Babylon 5 BC
The sun did not stand still to let a battle finish.

That is what (thanks to science) we can know.
...

Those are your beliefs, not facts. And it is especially weird why make an obvious false claim about Tyre that's ruins everyone can still see and notice that it is not rebuilt.

Tyre was rebuilt after both sieges (Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander and I believe a Macedonian Ruler after that). It never in fact stopped existing and exists today, though called 'Sur'. .Apologists point to ruins 'in the sea'or the Necropolis. They are on the edge of the town and outside the town, respectively, and are (by the look of them) of post - siege date. Old Tyre is being excavated under the present one.

This is the problem of Interpreting data and science -denial. The apologists that Theists go to for answers misinterpret, misrepresent and deny the science, because that's the only way they can maintain the faith.

The '(science) Being wrong often' apologetic is also woefully misconceived, because it misunderstands that science does not claim to have all the answers or all the complete answers. Take exploration. At one time America was unknown, then it was known but they thought it was India, then they found the Pacific was still to cross, then they had to work out the interior and the northwest passage. It is not a question of geography 'being wrong', but of being right in ways that got further information, but it never went back and said "Sorry, we were wrong about America, we''ll fall off the edge of the earth after all".

So there are constant revisions going on, notably about the origins of the universe and human evolution. But the basic evidence points to a Big Bang some 14 billion years ago and an evolution with other animals, and not as per Genesis. That is just wrong and all the rethinkings of science won't make it right. All you can do is deny the science, and one way to do that is misrepresent it. And I guess the way to do that is to repeat the fallacies and science -denial from the Bible apologists: 'Old Tyre is in the sea', 'Radiometric dating is unreliable', 'science thinks it knows it all, but is always changing its'mind." The same old fallacies and misrepresentations, time after time after time.

[TRANSPONDER]

...But science does have a very good track record of ...

...being wrong often.

There was no global flood
Tyre was rebuilt,
There was no Passover release custom

To which I'd add 'what we can 'know' There was no Bethlehem birth.
Daniel was not written in Babylon 5 BC
The sun did not stand still to let a battle finish.

That is what (thanks to science) we can know.
...

Those are your beliefs, not facts. And it is especially weird why make an obvious false claim about Tyre that's ruins everyone can still see and notice that it is not rebuilt.

What does any of this have to do with either Paul or the philosophers which are indeed the subjects of my query?


Tcg

What it seems to be is pointing out that Pauli s appealing to the evidence of 'Nature' (I/D)as 'evidence'of God's existence, and Epistemology (to use a philosophicaltermrather than 'science') says that ID is (on evidence) false.

Thus the argument goes on about science has it wrong, and me saying that Bible apologists misrepresent the science.

Of course philosophical arguments like Ontology or Kalam, son't really help Paul, Bible apologetics or Christianity, because they only argue for a god of some sort. It does not validate Biblegod, though The Believers assume that there is only one God under discussion.

[theophile]

The following verses are often presented by some Christians as evidence that everyone knows God exists:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

There are however many Christian theists who rely on and present in debate one or more of the many so-called Arguments for the Existence of God.

Would these arguments be needed if Paul is right in his claim from Romans 1?


Tcg

Nope, not needed. Paul is right in his claims: the eternal power and nature of God is plain in all the things around us. The arguments of the philosophers suppress this truth and would have us think of God otherwise. As, for example, the unmoved mover we see in Aristotle's metaphysics (which is arguably the prime expression of a philosophical proof of God that later theologians such as Aquinas or Anselm or even folks today simply riff on).

Such futility of thought, if you ask me, and as Paul says. And oh how prescient Paul was with this comment, foreshadowing as he does thousands or years of so-called proofs and counter-proofs that we still play at today and can't seem to get ourselves past!

[Tcg]

The following verses are often presented by some Christians as evidence that everyone knows God exists:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

There are however many Christian theists who rely on and present in debate one or more of the many so-called Arguments for the Existence of God.

Would these arguments be needed if Paul is right in his claim from Romans 1?


Tcg

Nope, not needed. Paul is right in his claims: the eternal power and nature of God is plain in all the things around us. The arguments of the philosophers suppress this truth and would have us think of God otherwise. As, for example, the unmoved mover we see in Aristotle's metaphysics (which is arguably the prime expression of a philosophical proof of God that later theologians such as Aquinas or Anselm or even folks today simply riff on).

Such futility of thought, if you ask me, and as Paul says. And oh how prescient Paul was with this comment, foreshadowing as he does thousands or years of so-called proofs and counter-proofs that we still play at today and can't seem to get ourselves past!

Well, I'm past them. In fact, I've never seen them as anything that is convincing for anyone other than those who are already convinced. Convinced before they even heard them that is.


Tcg

[theophile]

The following verses are often presented by some Christians as evidence that everyone knows God exists:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

There are however many Christian theists who rely on and present in debate one or more of the many so-called Arguments for the Existence of God.

Would these arguments be needed if Paul is right in his claim from Romans 1?


Tcg

Nope, not needed. Paul is right in his claims: the eternal power and nature of God is plain in all the things around us. The arguments of the philosophers suppress this truth and would have us think of God otherwise. As, for example, the unmoved mover we see in Aristotle's metaphysics (which is arguably the prime expression of a philosophical proof of God that later theologians such as Aquinas or Anselm or even folks today simply riff on).

Such futility of thought, if you ask me, and as Paul says. And oh how prescient Paul was with this comment, foreshadowing as he does thousands or years of so-called proofs and counter-proofs that we still play at today and can't seem to get ourselves past!

Well, I'm past them. In fact, I've never seen them as anything that is convincing for anyone other than those who are already convinced. Convinced before they even heard them that is.


Tcg

I think the philosophers are on to something but they completely miss the point. Put otherwise, there's real subtlety in Paul's words if we look closely. For example, he speaks of the 'eternal power' of God but he doesn't say the degree of that power. Whether it classifies as omnipotence for example or something else. If we looked at what the philosophers (/ Greeks) said, we would presume that God is perfect in every respect as the unmoved mover. Including in power. So Paul seems to be saying something else... Something completely contrary to the kind of God-thinking that fuels a lot of atheist argument frankly.

These verses should push us to think about just how plain God is. Not something so far beyond us that we can't even imagine it, like some great omnipotent being, but something simple and evident in all the things around us.

If our notion of God doesn't reconcile with that then we're barking up the wrong tree.

[brunumb]

Paul is right in his claims: the eternal power and nature of God is plain in all the things around us.

And the Emperor's new clothes are indeed astonishingly beautiful.

[theophile]

Paul is right in his claims: the eternal power and nature of God is plain in all the things around us.

And the Emperor's new clothes are indeed astonishingly beautiful.

okay? if I read this right then I don't think you get what I'm saying (which hey, I'll take the blame for as the communicator)

[TRANSPONDER]

Paul is right in his claims: the eternal power and nature of God is plain in all the things around us.

And the Emperor's new clothes are indeed astonishingly beautiful.

okay? if I read this right then I don't think you get what I'm saying (which hey, I'll take the blame for as the communicator)

I think we get perfectly what you mean, which is essentially 'God is real and if Philosophy or science says otherwise, they are wrong'. You will have to do better than that.

The way the logic works is Not to assume a god (name your own - because proving a First cause does not validate any particular religion) and look at the evidence of Nature (which is what Paul does) and see whether there is a god involved. Paul says there was because he knew nothing of science and just assumed a huge invisible human did it and the only one he considered was His God. Aside from why His and nobody elses', we have had near 2,000 years of science since then and the gaps for God have been filled by natural material processes.

This is why the materialist/naturalist default is the go -to Hypothesis and we (logically) do NOT begin with the god -claim; it is for Theism to make a case for it, not to claim it as a Given and engineer a Win by rejecting all the evidence that debunks it. This is why materialist physics (or the atheists' science) is on evidence right and theist ID is not, and that was the case even before US Law threw ID into the gutter as Creationism and not science.

Paul was wrong, but he didn't know better. Creation -apologists do or should know better.

The Emperor's new clothes are exceeding beautiful, but they really belong to the court scientist, not the Emperor. He just claims they are his but they are really far, far to big for him.