Correct. That's why I added "per se." It's a statement that originally men had some knowledge of God. Throughout history we have found that in any era, in any region, every culture has some kind of recognition and awareness of a deity. God's attributes (as we have discussed) have always been clearly seeable by anyone in any culture; they're out there to see.

> It doesn't say they knew God, per se

The beginning of verse 21 is quite explicit in stating that "they knew God".

Yep, time to move on. Thanks for the conversation. Perhaps we'll get a chance to converse later on another topic.

And, just for the record, I'm not a young earth creationist. And I don't dismiss science. Science has plenty of access to the truth; I've said it several times. I do look honestly at the facts and evidence, which is why I take the positions I do. I'm an evidentialist, as I've said several times. I follow the evidence where it leads.

I could respond to your post, but it's time to move on. Thanks for the conversation.

> The principles and foundations we find in theism (regularity, order, balance, beauty, predictability, personality, purpose, intelligence [informational data], and morality, to name a few)

The problem here is that those are all based on unsubstantiated claims.

Science is in the business of understanding as accurately as possible the real world and nature. Its based on evidence. Theism is not based on evidence, it is based on the ignorance of the people who wrote the doctrine thousands of years ago before any formalised method for studying reality had even been conceived. Its based on superstition and ignorance.

Tell me one part of theism that gets nature right, and how you know it got it right?

I'm starting to think you don't really know what science is. Science isn't opinions, it's demonstrable models based on evidence.

Please show me one part of theism that gets nature right, and how you know its right.

> There are many evidences that point to theism, the teleological argument

In order to be convinced by this argument, you have to ignore the facts and evidence. I'm not going to copy paste any links. This argument has never met its burden of proof. If it had, then why wouldn't science support it? Anyway, the fact that you can easily Google it and read up on why it fails, and you're still convinced by it, tells me that nothing I say or do will convince you otherwise, means that you don't seem to care about evidence. And that you're dismissing science as being unable to access the truth here, because it's limited, enforces the notion that you don't seem to care about the actual evidenced. I'm going to guess then that you're also a young earth creationist, because that would seem to align with the evidence that you don't care about evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

And if you won't honestly look at the facts and evidence, what could I possibly say to you to make this conversation worth while? You're not going to convince me to ignore the evidence, I'm not going to convince you to accept the evidence. Time to move on?

> I said that science and theism have more in common than science and naturalism.

That is absolutely correct. The principles and foundations we find in theism (regularity, order, balance, beauty, predictability, personality, purpose, intelligence [informational data], and morality, to name a few) are the same principles and foundations we find in the natural world. What we are told about natural processes (random, mutations, chance, selection, inexplicable sequences [such as non-life to life, amino acids and RNA to DNA]) are not as well aligned with what we see (order, predictability, etc.) as theism is.

> Do you think science is making up evidence?

Of course not. I never said or implied that, nor do I believe that science is making up evidence. Science is a fantastic discipline and source of knowledge, and usually very reliable (science changes its mind a lot as it learns more).

> There is no single piece of evidenced that points to theism.

There are many evidences that point to theism, the teleological argument, for one.

[list][*] That the universe is so fine-tuned for life points more to an intelligent, purposeful source than a random, chance, selective, and mutational one.
[*] That personality (human & animal) came from a personal source (God) rather than an impersonal one (time + matter + chance) is good abductive reasoning.
[*] That informational data came from a previous informational (intelligent) source is more likely than that it arose from a random information source (chemicals).
[*] It is more likely that we see purpose in the universe and life as coming from a purposeful source rather than from random processes.[/list]
Everything we see points more strongly to a powerful, intelligent, purposeful, personal source than to a chance, random, impersonal, purposeless one. That the universe is so finely-tuned on a knife's edge of constants in order to support life points to the greater likelihood of theism than of naturalism.

> Science follows the evidence. Theism does not.

Both do. I'm an evidentialist. We look for evidence, and follow it where it leads. If we're looking at causality, we ask what is a sufficient cause for what we see. Science gives a partial answer, theism gives a sufficient one. If we're look at teleology, science gives a partial answer, theism gives a sufficient one. The case is stronger that consciousness came from consciousness than from non-consciousness. The case is stronger that informational data came from previous informational data than from non. The case is stronger that personality came from previous personality than not. In every case, if we objectively and honestly follow the evidence, theism is the stronger answer every time. Every time.

> Science follows the evidence. Theism does not.

I'll tell you what—how about if you write your case for naturalism for me. Give me your case and the substantiation for it. You follow the evidence. Then give it to me. I'll be glad to read it, and then we can discuss this further.

> I don't mean this as insulting, but please read more carefully and think more precisely. This is about our 3rd time through this. The evidence we see in the natural world aligns better with a theistic worldview than with a naturalistic one.

Here's what you actually said.

[quote]I said that science and theism have more in common than science and naturalism.[/quote]

And now you're saying I'm not precise, and you are now pretending you said:

> The evidence we see in the natural world aligns better with a theistic worldview than with a naturalistic one.

This is different, but equally wrong. Do you think science is making up evidence? There is no single piece of evidenced that points to theism. And all of it, every bit, points to nature.

But instead of being insulting, why don't you simply back up your claim. And before you post something stupid like some design argument, why don't you look up whether the argument holds up to actual evidence?

> I said that science's ability to explain everything we see is limited and incomplete, but theism has sufficiency of explanation

Science follows the evidence. Theism does not.

[quote="jimwalton"]Here is an excerpt from "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry Morris:[/quote]

Thank you for the extensive summary on the subject Jim. Ill look into Henry Morris a little more.

> People made a choice - yes. But to say "though there is evidence of God, that evidence is refutable" seems to be missing part of the meaning - that God is inexcusably obvious and clearly seen and understood as God by people but people choose not to follow him anyway in spite of knowing him.

I was not giving a complete explication and exegetical analysis of the verse, just trying to communicate what Paul was saying. Yes, there is more to the meaning than what I wrote, I agree.

> God is inexcusably obvious and clearly seen and understood as God by people but people choose not to follow him anyway in spite of knowing him.

Yes, Paul is saying this. He specifically says...

[list][*] God's attributes (which may be different from seeing God Himself) can be clearly seen (Rom. 1.20). Moses, in Ex. 33.18-23, gets to see one of God's attributes (his goodness), though he is not allowed to see God Himself.
[*] God's invisible attributes are what are understood (Rom. 1.20). They are observable and perceivable (Gk. νοούμενα) through what has been made, viz., nature. Through nature was can see attributes like power, purpose, personality, morality, predictability, regularity, etc.
[*] They knew the truth but surprised it (Rom 1.18). It doesn't say they knew God, per se, but the truth was hanging out there, and God's attributes were observable through nature, so they were able to know about God but chose to suppress it, ignore it, and deny it.[/list]

> People make a choice. Though there is evidence of God, that evidence is refutable

Hi. People made a choice - yes. But to say "though there is evidence of God, that evidence is refutable" seems to be missing part of the meaning - that God is inexcusably obvious and clearly seen and understood as God by people but people choose not to follow him anyway in spite of knowing him.

Aside: Primarily what to is to clarify Romans 1 20 so won't address the cosmology for now

> Yet you literally said that science alignes better with theism. How can it if it doesn't even acknowledge theism.

This is getting very frustrating. I don't mean this as insulting, but please read more carefully and think more precisely. This is about our 3rd time through this. The evidence we see in the natural world aligns better with a theistic worldview than with a naturalistic one. That is a COMPLETELY different thought than claiming that you can use science to verify theism.

I said that science's ability to explain everything we see is limited and incomplete, but theism has sufficiency of explanation, therefore science aligns better with theism than with naturalism. That is a COMPLETELY different thought than claiming that you can use science to verify theism.

I said that given that many of the cosmological constants are very fine-tuned for life, this is not at all surprising or improbable if there is a God. On the other hand, to assume that all of these happened by chance is extremely improbable. This offers support for theism over naturalism. That is a COMPLETELY different thought than claiming that you can use science to verify theism.

I said that The fact that the universe has so much orderliness, reliability, constancy and predictability, which is the ground of science itself, speaks more to an orderly and reliable cause than to a random one emitting from an "explosion." Theism offers more resources to understand why there are ineffable laws in the universe than naturalism does. That is a COMPLETELY different thought than claiming that you can use science to verify theism.

> Everything you just said is because of science, not theism.

Try to follow. Science can only partially explain these things, whereas theism can give a complete explanation. It's theism that has the principle of sufficient explanation, not science.

> And you have to recognize that when you say science can't do something, that if true only means it can't currently do something.

True, but that's a god-of-the-gaps argument. "Well, we can't explain it now, but it's there, and we will, so just assume it."

I read an interesting article yesterday (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/falsifiability/) that said things like,...

[list][*] "We are in various ways hitting the limits of what will ever be testable."
[*] "It’s possible that experimental tests of the predictions of string theory will never be within our reach."
[*] "Maybe we have to accept uncertainty as a profound aspect of our understanding of the universe in cosmology as well as particle physics."[/list]

Very interesting. These questions may never be answered, but that doesn't undermine science. There are just places where science cannot go, and that's been my point through many of our exchanges.

> If you're just going to parrot theistic talking points without looking them up first to see if they're true, then should I assume you don't care about facts and evidence? You're giving me the fine tuning argument. That's so tired, look it up.

I've written books on it, so you can cease with your deprecatory insults and putdowns. Please engage the case and the evidence, read carefully and think precisely instead of just being so judgmental and insulting. Yes, I guess we're done here.