Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Romans

[Vesture El]

What evidence supports the claim in Romans 1:20 that everyone is aware god exists?

[jimwalton]

Nature begs an explanation: Why is there something rather than nothing? Since we are intuitively oriented to cause-and-effect, it's perfectly natural to wonder about causality when we see the world. Anyone's even moderate observational skills shows us that nature has an aspect that is orderly, uniform, regular, purposeful, functional, and even beautiful. We can see that humans have personality, and even morality. We can perceive will, responsibility, and love. These are all part of world through simple observation which can lead anyone to wonder about causality, purpose, personality, morality, and yes, even spirituality. The face of nature motivates humans to look for something beyond nature.

I'm not sure the text says everyone is aware God exists. Instead, to be more careful with the text, it says that God's invisible attributes, specifically those of power and glory, can be clearly seen. It's safe to say that nature can be observed to be powerful and magnificent.

[Vesture El]

> Nature begs an explanation: Why is there something rather than nothing?

If we don't know what the explination is, would I don't know be a valid answer?

> Anyone's even moderate observational skills shows us that nature has an aspect that is orderly, uniform, regular, purposeful, functional, and even beautiful.

In whaat way is the universe orderly unifrom or regular? And how would you establish it was purposeful or beautiful which are subjective terms?

> The face of nature motivates humans to look for something beyond nature.

Do we have any good reason to think that something beyond nature exists?

[jimwalton]

> Is we don't know what the explination is, would I don't know be a valid answer?

Normal, yes; valid, no. We often have to say "I don't know," and usually that motivates to push us further into seeing if we can arrive at an explanation. That's where science came from and what it's all about. But "I don't know" isn't usually considered a valid answer. Instead, it's a temporary and motivating one.

> In whaat way is the universe orderly unifrom or regular?

We can predict the time of sunrise and sunset, of the spring and fall equinox, of the return of Halley's comet, of solar and lunar eclipses, of Mercury retrograde, of Pluto's orbit. We know the gravitational constant (key word is "constant," meaning regularity and predictability), the strong nuclear force, the predictable action of atoms, the predictability of chemical reactions, the constant nature of themes and charge of electrons, protons and neutrons, the speed of light, Planck's constant, Earth's orbit around the sun, the properties of the carbon atom, and a MILLION other things.

> And how would you establish it was purposeful or beautiful which are subjective terms?

Beauty is more subjective than purposeful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (though we all agree on ugly, don't we ). But as part of our science and philosophy, as well as literature and theology, we are always wondering about purpose, about why. It drives us, because we see purpose everywhere, and we can't help but ask the biggest question of all: "WHY?"

> Do we have any good reason to think that something beyond nature exists?

Nature drives us to ask the question. You'll observe that every culture, worldwide, throughout all of history, has found reason to wonder if something beyond nature exists. Religion is found in every culture, ever. So I would say with confidence that just about everyone in all of history has a good reason to wonder if something beyond nature exists, and by far the majority of people worldwide throughout history have found that there is good reason to think that something beyond nature exists.

[Tarnished]

> Nature begs an explanation: Why is there something rather than nothing?

And not having an answer means the answer is I don't know. It doesn't mean we insert a magic answer. Also, gods beg an explanation as well, why is there a god rather than no god?

> Since we are intuitively oriented to cause-and-effect, it's perfectly natural to wonder about causality when we see the world.

Yes, as that is why we developed science. To model and understand reality based on evidence, as best we can. And all of it so far has been well explained as natural, without the need to invoke magic or gods. Also, science has a really good track record.

> The face of nature motivates humans to look for something beyond nature.

Let me know if you find a way to investigate something beyond nature.

[jimwalton]

> And not having an answer means the answer is I don't know.

It's correct that not having an answer means the answer is "I don't know," but many people have an answer, in which case "I don't know" is no longer the answer. "I don't know" is only the answer for people who have not found a way to the answer.

> It doesn't mean we insert a magic answer.

Correct. Inserting a magic answer is just pretty dumb when there are real answers to be had.

> Also, gods beg an explanation as well, why is there a god rather than no god?

Great question, and the answer is that there are many logical and scientific evidences for "why is there a god rather than no god?" In other words, there are adequate answers for that question as well as for the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

> Yes, as that is why we developed science.

Exactly. But we all know that science is not the sum total of all knowledge. Science operates well in the natural realm, but is limited when it comes to questions of philosophy, law, literature, theology, economics, politics, the stock market, predicting the winners of sporting events, and dozens of other legitimate pursuits of knowledge.

> And all of it so far has been well explained as natural, without the need to invoke magic or gods.

This is misleading. Science cannot explain what was around before the Big Bang, what motivated the Big Bang, the causal mechanism for the Cambrian Explosion, dark matter, what happens to time in black holes, and many many many things. It's disingenuous to claim "all of it has been well explained as natural."

> without the need to invoke magic or gods

I'm not invoking magic. That's foolish. Considering the metaphysical, however, is a logical pursuit.

> Also, science has a really good track record.

Sure, as far as it goes. Science lacks a complete explanation of what is and how it got here. For instance, science can't explain how life began, nor the beginning of informational data (two biggies). Science lacks sufficiency of explanation, whereas theism doesn't.

> Let me know if you find a way to investigate something beyond nature.

I have, and so have billions of others. It comes from not being closed minded about the options. Science and the natural world are but one consideration.

[Handsome]

If I just follow along with the reasoning here, shouldn't scientists be among the most religious people?

[jimwalton]

Not necessarily. As I mentioned further up the thread to someone else, to be more careful with the text, it doesn't say that the existence of God is obvious to all. Instead, it says that God's invisible attributes, specifically those of power and glory, can be clearly seen. It's safe to say that scientists are able to see that nature is powerful and magnificent.

On the other hand, though, this site (https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/sci ... nd-belief/) says that just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power, and that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power. While that is a lower rate of belief than the general population, there are still more than half of scientists that could be among those who consider themselves religious.

[Vesture El]

> the majority of people worldwide throughout history have found that there is good reason to think that something beyond nature exists.

And do you think they're right to do so?

[jimwalton]

It's always right to question, probe, and investigate. It's always right to ask questions and research answers. It's always right to look for evidence to support claims. It's always right to follow the evidence where it leads. So, in answer to your question, yes, I think they're right to do so. We all want good reasons for what we believe.