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

[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)

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.

No that's not what I'm saying. I said the philosophers were wrong per the question posed in the OP. I didn't even mention science. So sorry, you can't just lump them together like that.

And if Paul is talking about the philosophers, then it would have been the Greeks. Who would have had a lot of influence on his church in Rome and other places. (So we're talking specifically about folks like Plato and Aristotle here.)

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

Paul looks to nature, I agree, but I don't think he's necessarily making the argument that you say here. i.e., concluding from nature that there must be some great and powerful being behind it all.

To think in this way is tantamount to thinking like the Greeks, who Paul says are wrong. So perhaps we ought to think a little differently about Paul's God? i.e., there are other ways that God's eternal power and nature can be seen in all things, and different ways of understanding that nature and power, than Greek views of perfection and causation...

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.

No, there is no Emperor. That's been the point.

[1213]

...
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....

Sorry, I don't think that is true. Bible tells Tyre was in the "midst of the sea", surrounded be water. And the ruins still are surrounded by water. There was "daughter cities" on the coast. And it seems nowadays people call them wrongly Tyre.

therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh, Behold, I am against you, Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. They shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her a bare rock. She shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken it, says the Lord Yahweh; and she shall become a spoil to the nations. Her daughters who are in the field shall be slain with the sword: and they shall know that I am Yahweh.
Eze. 26:3-6

If people name a new town Tyre, it does not mean the Tyre Bible is speaking has been rebuilt.

Ans sorry, if this was too far from the topic, I think it is important to correct false claims that Transponder seems to think were relevant to this topic.

[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.

No that's not what I'm saying. I said the philosophers were wrong per the question posed in the OP. I didn't even mention science. So sorry, you can't just lump them together like that.

And if Paul is talking about the philosophers, then it would have been the Greeks. Who would have had a lot of influence on his church in Rome and other places. (So we're talking specifically about folks like Plato and Aristotle here.)

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

Paul looks to nature, I agree, but I don't think he's necessarily making the argument that you say here. i.e., concluding from nature that there must be some great and powerful being behind it all.

To think in this way is tantamount to thinking like the Greeks, who Paul says are wrong. So perhaps we ought to think a little differently about Paul's God? i.e., there are other ways that God's eternal power and nature can be seen in all things, and different ways of understanding that nature and power, than Greek views of perfection and causation...

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.

No, there is no Emperor. That's been the point.

You seem to have missed the plot. Paul appeals to nature as evidence of God. Science shows that nature works without a god.

Science debunks Paul's argument, which is essentially ID, though Paul knows nothing about the science and Creationists know, but try to fiddle it to prove a god.

I don't much care about the Greeks and how they saw gods. They thought they all lived camped out on the top of Mount Olympus, until, that is, somebody climbed it. Since then, we have climbed many Olympuses and God has had to retreat to parts of the universe that science cannot reach. The incredible disappearing god, and science is the bottom line here, not Greek Philosophers, good though they were, for the time.

And yes, the parable of the Emperor can't be pushed too far. There is always an emperor, if only as a metaphor for a deluded populace. And 'science' is validated information of which the public have gleaned some information, remain more or less in ignorance or go into denial. There may be (as you say) no Emperor, but the people think there is and that it has beautiful clothes when in fact it has none, and it actually the wardrobe of science that the ID Emperor claims to be wearing. It isn't the Emperor that is fooled but the crowd.

And the kid that shouts "Look at the King!" will be shushed, sent for re - education, or somehow silenced. Atheists will not be silenced. Never again.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #21]

To think in this way is tantamount to thinking like the Greeks, who Paul says are wrong. So perhaps we ought to think a little differently about Paul's God? i.e., there are other ways that God's eternal power and nature can be seen in all things, and different ways of understanding that nature and power, than Greek views of perfection and causation...

I think this connects well with why atheists exist. One who lacks belief in gods is one who has chosen to cut him/herself off from knowing/knowledge of the divine.

One who choses such and then demands evidence of the divine, is relying upon some medium in which to convince them, rather than on the divine.

Paul appears to be saying therein, that everyone has the capability of engaging with/activating and aligning the inner realization with the outer reality experience, but an atheist has purposefully deactivated that line of connection.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]


If I understand the philosophers correctly then they were trying to explain and expand on Paul’s general thesis. They are not in disagreement.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #24]

The way I see it is that Paul was saying something opposed to what naturalist/Materialist science is saying now and may be what the Greek philosophers were saying then (Though Plato when he ran out of options would tend to say 'It comes from God', by which he means Zeus, of course).

And I get what you say about cutting off from the experience of God etc. But that is cutting yourself off from the possibility that pursuit of the Mystical Experience may in the end, be a waste of time. Suppose one does pursue the Infinite and Experiences it? What good does it actually do you, unless one has a load of Faithbased Theist baggage in the train?

Sure, it may make you feel good. There are ways of doing that without mumbling yourself into a trance, The thing is, the Believer misses the option of seeing this as a human mental effect and not the only one.

I think they are missing out on possible options, just as Paul with his claim that nature is just a billboard fro goddunit. I for one see it as greater and better to comprehend nature (Life the Universe and Everything) as a fantastic natural process, and to see it as no more than the flat pack of a Hebrew tribal god is selling ones' mental options woefully short.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #26]

And I get what you say about cutting off from the experience of God etc. But that is cutting yourself off from the possibility that pursuit of the Mystical Experience may in the end, be a waste of time.

Mystical Experience has often involved showing the individual that time is an illusion - and that death is as well.

One will live an entire lifetime and not learn everything there is to know and what if death is not the end and one could have utilized their time in a balanced manner which did not involve cutting one off in favor of the other.

I would rather the Panthera pulling my Chariot were both moving in the same direction with the same purpose...

Each to their own of course and I certainly don't need to know the details as to WHY an atheist might choose not to engage or to disengage from pursuit of Mystical Experience. It is enough for me to know they don't want it. Knowing why they don't want it is surplus to my particular interests/requirements.

[TRANSPONDER]

Each to their own of course and I'd be the last to tell people what they should be interested in, but I still think that it is a valid question -- what good does it do you in the end? Whether we know about death and what happens after or not, it will happen. There are various hypotheses (mostly religious) about some preparations or other that will get a better afterlife than if we just die knowing nothing about it, but I reckon that nobody really knows and these claims of knowledge of afterlifes are just hogwash, if they are not designed to scam money, influence or gratification. If there is anything after death but rejoining the cosmos as atomic particles, it is natural and something we all get no matter what prayers we mumbled, funny hats we wore or speculative theories we espoused in life.

Like I say, you can do what you like with your panthers, and thanks for sharing, but the purpose of debate is to make a case, and just posting our likes and preferences makes no case.

[TRANSPONDER]

Each to their own of course and I'd be the last to tell people what they should be interested in, but I still think that it is a valid question -- what good does it do you in the end? Whether we know about death and what happens after or not, it will happen. There are various hypotheses (mostly religious) about some preparations or other that will get a better afterlife than if we just die knowing nothing about it, but I reckon that nobody really knows and these claims of knowledge of afterlifes are just hogwash, if they are not designed to scam money, influence or gratification. If there is anything after death but rejoining the cosmos as atomic particles, it is natural and something we all get no matter what prayers we mumbled, funny hats we wore or speculative theories we espoused in life.

Like I say, you can do what you like with your panthers, and thanks for sharing, but the purpose of debate is to make a case, and just posting our likes and preferences makes no case.

Dupe post again. Sorry. Maybe I can do something with it.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #28]

Each to their own of course and I'd be the last to tell people what they should be interested in, but I still think that it is a valid question...

Maybe so, but not one that I am interested in attempting to answer FOR you. And if you have answered it FOR yourself, then that is a settled thing anyway. Win/Win.