> I think it is quite clear that is what the text implies especially if you read from verse 19 to 21. Would be glad to hear if you have any reasons to suggest otherwise.
Romans 1 is where Paul is offering a diagnosis of the human condition: humans are in rebellion against their Creator, and God will judge such rebellion. The Jews often railed against the godlessness of the Gentiles, but Paul is setting them up to show them they are as guilty as everyone else (Rom. 2.1). And then chapter 3 puts the nails in the coffin: We are all missing the target.
So let's go back to v. 18 (of Rom. 1). God's wrath falls on all rebels, regardless of religion, nationality, or race. It's not a petulant, immature, emotional, vengeful rage, but instead a wrath of reason and law. It's true justice at work. And who is it against? People who knew but ignored, who took what was out in the open and tossed it under the carpet to hide it and desecrate it.
v. 19: The rebels knew better. It’s not as if God’s character or his loving desires for people were a big secret. God had made himself evident enough to be perceived on some level.
What Paul is referring to is natural revelation: God regularly and consistently gives things to men that betray a divine source: conscience (2.14), a moral sense (1.32), the natural world (1.20), guilt (1.18-19), and knowledge and truth (1.18-19). These are what are "made plain" to people.
Then v. 20 speaks of his "invisible attributes" that are clearly seen. I take this to mean things like order, regularity, predictability, purpose, beauty, and intelligence.
All of these elements point to a divine source. They make someone go, "You know, God is a reasonable source for all of these phenomena." Our senses and our science show us what the world is like, and our intelligence helps us proceed from the natural world to God, from effect to cause. The knowledge of the world we live in motivates us to seek to know what is beyond this world. The created universe opens one's mind to what must lie behind it.
v. 21: People make a choice. Though there is evidence of God, that evidence is refutable. Though God has revealed himself through more than natural revelation, but also through special revelation, that evidence is also refutable. (When it comes right down to it, all evidence in all of our disciplines is ultimately refutable. People make a choice what to believe.) Paul argues that people had enough evidence to go on as far as not just believing in God but knowing him, but intentionally rebelled and followed a path of their own choice. Because they rejected Truth, their thinking and knowledge became perverted (corrupted and distorted from its original meaning). I guess we would say it became secular: certainly still knowledge and truth, but "futile"—missing pieces that are supposed to be there. They were living in the shadows, only seeing part of the picture.
> It is a good question but God does not answer this question in an anymore meaningful manner either. It just regresses it to the question of "Why is there God rather than nothing"?
Correct. Something has to have always been eternal, whether matter, energy, some quantum something or other, God, or something else. Nothing can self-generate out of nothingness. Either nature was there (energy, etc.) and it "Banged," or else nature was not there, and something outside of it made it "Bang." So we have to wrestle with the question of causality, because anything that begins to exist has to have a cause.
On top of that, though, science tells us that first causes are always personal causes. We know of nothing that shows us otherwise.
When it comes right down to it, there is a natural and high connection between theism and causality: intelligence, personality, purpose, intent, freedom, power, and laws. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused. Theism also has sufficient prior probability (simplicity of explanation) and complete explanatory power. The intrinsic probability of theism, relative to other hypotheses about "Why is there something rather than nothing," is relatively high.
Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Romans
34 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: Romans 1:20 - What evidence supports the claim?
by jimwalton » Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:50 pm
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Romans 1:20 - What evidence supports the claim?
by Scape211 » Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:16 am
jimwalton wrote:On top of that, though, science tells us that first causes are always personal causes. We know of nothing that shows us otherwise.
I dont want to derail this conversation, but personal cause is something I am curious about and wanted to learn more. A quick Google search gets all kinds of results (even when I say science + personal cause). Where can I learn more about it? It seems quite detrimental to the conversation of the beginning of existence and causality.
- Scape211
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Re: Romans 1:20 - What evidence supports the claim?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:12 am
Impersonal causes must have first causes. Picture a billiard ball rolling across the green felt. It doesn't just start up by itself. A person (or animal) set it in motion. And only personal causes are capable of being first causes. Kinetic energy is energy is motion; potential energy is energy stored. The only way something begins in motion is if there is a first cause, and that cause is necessarily personal.
For the universe to have eternal existence, it must have been static (potential energy)—sitting and waiting for the right "spark." But what moved the the universe into kinetic energy? How did it get in motion? Personal causes are the only things capable of being first causes (though not every personal cause is a first cause.) You can never have an infinite chain of causes—it regresses. Whenever we see a chain of causes, we can always ask, “Who caused it?”
Here is an excerpt from "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry Morris:
Each effect therefore has a cause adequate to produce it. But that cause must itself have been an effect caused by an antecedent cause, and that by another cause, and so on back.
Logic compels us ultimately to one of two conclusions: either the chain of causes is infinite, with no beginning of the sequence at all, or else we must finally see the chain terminate in a great First Cause which itself was eternally uncaused, capable in and of itself to initiate the entire sequence of secondary causes and effects. These are the only two possibilities if the Law of Cause and Effect operated in past ages as it does today.
A causing mechanism can easily be capable of accomplishing more than the particular effect it produces. An effect, on the other hand, can never be greater than its cause. In an indefinite chain of effects and causes, there must therefore either be an eternal uniformity of effects (each cause producing an effect exactly equivalent to itself) or else the secondary causes successively increase in potency as they go backwards in time until, finally, they become infinite at infinite past time. Both possibilities are contrary both to reason and experience. In fact, the second alternative becomes to all intents and purposes not the postulated finite chain of second causes but rather a chain leading finally back to a great infinite First Cause.
Consider, then, some of the effects observable in the universe. The vastness of the physical universe is inconceivably great, and its cause must be at least co-extensive with space and coterminous with time. Therefore, the First Cause is infinite and eternal. Indeed, as the ontological argument would suggest, the existence of the very ideas of infinity and eternity, two absolutes (nothing can be vaster than infinity or longer in duration than eternity), is evidence enough that such absolutes have real existence.
Everywhere and always in space and time occur phenomena of energy, matter, and motion. To cause and maintain such an infinite array and variety of power-producing systems (e.g., the galaxies) and power-converting processes (e.g., all of the earth’s phenomena), the First Cause must be omnipotent and omnipresent. The fact that all such systems and processes are orderly and capable of systematic and intelligent description and mathematical formulation clearly bespeaks intelligent design. Causality, therefore, in this case, indicate the First Cause to be intelligent—indeed, omniscient.
One of the most obvious and significant effects in the universe is that of personality. … Thought, fleeing, desire, and will are effects, and must have an adequate cause. First Cause is conscious, emotional, and volitional: personal.
The existence of moral and spiritual realities in the universe proves the First Cause to be essentially moral and spiritual. Right and wrong, love and hate, and justice and injustice show that the First Cause is just and loving.
The First Cause of Space must be infinite.
The First Cause of Time must be eternal.
The First Cause of perpetual motion must be omnipotent in power.
The First Cause of unbounded variety must be omnipresent in phenomena.
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient in intelligence.
The First Cause of consciousness must be personal.
The First Cause of feeling must be emotional.
The First Cause of will must be volitional.
The First Cause of ethical values must be moral.
The First Cause of religious values must be spiritual.
The First Cause of beauty values must be aesthetic.
The First Cause of righteousness must be holy.
The First Cause of justice must be just.
The First Cause of Love must be loving.
The First Cause of life must be living.
For the universe to have eternal existence, it must have been static (potential energy)—sitting and waiting for the right "spark." But what moved the the universe into kinetic energy? How did it get in motion? Personal causes are the only things capable of being first causes (though not every personal cause is a first cause.) You can never have an infinite chain of causes—it regresses. Whenever we see a chain of causes, we can always ask, “Who caused it?”
Here is an excerpt from "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry Morris:
Each effect therefore has a cause adequate to produce it. But that cause must itself have been an effect caused by an antecedent cause, and that by another cause, and so on back.
Logic compels us ultimately to one of two conclusions: either the chain of causes is infinite, with no beginning of the sequence at all, or else we must finally see the chain terminate in a great First Cause which itself was eternally uncaused, capable in and of itself to initiate the entire sequence of secondary causes and effects. These are the only two possibilities if the Law of Cause and Effect operated in past ages as it does today.
A causing mechanism can easily be capable of accomplishing more than the particular effect it produces. An effect, on the other hand, can never be greater than its cause. In an indefinite chain of effects and causes, there must therefore either be an eternal uniformity of effects (each cause producing an effect exactly equivalent to itself) or else the secondary causes successively increase in potency as they go backwards in time until, finally, they become infinite at infinite past time. Both possibilities are contrary both to reason and experience. In fact, the second alternative becomes to all intents and purposes not the postulated finite chain of second causes but rather a chain leading finally back to a great infinite First Cause.
Consider, then, some of the effects observable in the universe. The vastness of the physical universe is inconceivably great, and its cause must be at least co-extensive with space and coterminous with time. Therefore, the First Cause is infinite and eternal. Indeed, as the ontological argument would suggest, the existence of the very ideas of infinity and eternity, two absolutes (nothing can be vaster than infinity or longer in duration than eternity), is evidence enough that such absolutes have real existence.
Everywhere and always in space and time occur phenomena of energy, matter, and motion. To cause and maintain such an infinite array and variety of power-producing systems (e.g., the galaxies) and power-converting processes (e.g., all of the earth’s phenomena), the First Cause must be omnipotent and omnipresent. The fact that all such systems and processes are orderly and capable of systematic and intelligent description and mathematical formulation clearly bespeaks intelligent design. Causality, therefore, in this case, indicate the First Cause to be intelligent—indeed, omniscient.
One of the most obvious and significant effects in the universe is that of personality. … Thought, fleeing, desire, and will are effects, and must have an adequate cause. First Cause is conscious, emotional, and volitional: personal.
The existence of moral and spiritual realities in the universe proves the First Cause to be essentially moral and spiritual. Right and wrong, love and hate, and justice and injustice show that the First Cause is just and loving.
The First Cause of Space must be infinite.
The First Cause of Time must be eternal.
The First Cause of perpetual motion must be omnipotent in power.
The First Cause of unbounded variety must be omnipresent in phenomena.
The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient in intelligence.
The First Cause of consciousness must be personal.
The First Cause of feeling must be emotional.
The First Cause of will must be volitional.
The First Cause of ethical values must be moral.
The First Cause of religious values must be spiritual.
The First Cause of beauty values must be aesthetic.
The First Cause of righteousness must be holy.
The First Cause of justice must be just.
The First Cause of Love must be loving.
The First Cause of life must be living.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Romans 1:20 - What evidence supports the claim?
by Tarnished » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:02 pm
> Of course science acknowledges nature and not theism. That's quite obvious.
Yet you literally said that science alignes better with theism. How can it if it doesn't even acknowledge theism.
> Instead, what I'm saying is that science can only partially explain the cause of the universe; biology and chemistry cannot explain abiogenesis, science cannot explain how reasoning can be reliable if it came about by selection and mutation.
Everything you just said is because of science, not theism. 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. And finally, theism can't tell us anything at all about those things because it doesn't work with evidence. It just says "god did it" where science has not yet gotten an answer.
How many times has science corrected theism? All the time.
How many times has theism corrected science? Never.
I think we're done here. 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.
Yet you literally said that science alignes better with theism. How can it if it doesn't even acknowledge theism.
> Instead, what I'm saying is that science can only partially explain the cause of the universe; biology and chemistry cannot explain abiogenesis, science cannot explain how reasoning can be reliable if it came about by selection and mutation.
Everything you just said is because of science, not theism. 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. And finally, theism can't tell us anything at all about those things because it doesn't work with evidence. It just says "god did it" where science has not yet gotten an answer.
How many times has science corrected theism? All the time.
How many times has theism corrected science? Never.
I think we're done here. 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.
- Tarnished
Re: Romans 1:20 - What evidence supports the claim?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:04 pm
> 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,...
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.
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,...
- "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."
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.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Romans 1:20 - What evidence supports the claim?
by Al 88 » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:24 pm
> 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
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
- Al 88
Re: Romans 1:20 - What evidence supports the claim?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:25 pm
> 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...
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...
- 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.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Romans 1:20 - What evidence supports the claim?
by Scape211 » Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:38 pm
jimwalton wrote:Here is an excerpt from "Many Infallible Proofs" by Henry Morris:
Thank you for the extensive summary on the subject Jim. Ill look into Henry Morris a little more.
- Scape211
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Re: Romans 1:20 - What evidence supports the claim?
by Tarnished » Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:12 pm
> 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.
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.
Here's what you actually said.
I said that science and theism have more in common than science and naturalism.
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.
- Tarnished
Re: Romans 1:20 - What evidence supports the claim?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 06, 2019 2:14 pm
> 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.
> 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.
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.
- 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.
> 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.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
34 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests