PDA

View Full Version : Proof Of God - Conscienciousness



exminister
October 31st, 2015, 04:13 AM
I have always been intrigued by debates on the existence of God and I can appreciate both sides and can see weaknesses on both sides. But I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate. I am with me every second of every day. I stand in wonder sometimes of it. I remember as a child being afraid of dying and once in a flash I felt the full sense of being alive and that scared me more. :)

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

musterion
October 31st, 2015, 04:53 AM
I have always been intrigued by debates on the existence of God and I can appreciate both sides and can see weaknesses on both sides. But I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate. I am with me every second of every day. I stand in wonder sometimes of it. I remember as a child being afraid of dying and once in a flash I felt the full sense of being alive and that scared me more. :)

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.



Argument from consciousness (https://www.google.com/search?q=chronology&oq=chronoloy&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.5971j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#num=50&q=argument+from+consciousness)

Jonahdog
October 31st, 2015, 05:31 AM
How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

An argument from incredulity?

I think therefore I am.
I don't understand how that is possible.
Therefore GOD.

Sorry, but without further evidence, it's all chemistry and physics.

chrysostom
October 31st, 2015, 05:42 AM
there is no proof
there are only reasonable explanations
and
they are based on what you want
so
the ultimate question
is
what do you want?

do you want an explanation?

many don't

exminister
October 31st, 2015, 05:47 AM
An argument from incredulity?

I think therefore I am.
I don't understand how that is possible.
Therefore GOD.

Sorry, but without further evidence, it's all chemistry and physics.

Reads like a pass.

Truster
October 31st, 2015, 05:55 AM
The scriptures are emphatic that the man who denies the existence of Elohim is a fool. This is affirmed by the fact that He has placed the knowledge of Himself in each and every person and that His Almighty power is witnesses by the creation.

A person receives sufficient revelation to condemn himself.

quip
October 31st, 2015, 05:56 AM
I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

No, its entirely subjective. I could be a bizarre figment of your imagination or vice versa. :idunno:


I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate.

Who's doing the asking? Prove to me that you exist ...then we both may put this issue to rest.


How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

Clear sense of being?

Are you a mind, body, some odd commixture of both?

If you can't even prove yourself as existing, wherefore the idea of an external existing God?

Jonahdog
October 31st, 2015, 05:57 AM
Reads like a pass.

Not a pass. Your argument is that you simply do not/cannot understand how your sense of yourself, your consciousness, could arise. Your answer suggests a god, no doubt the god of the Bible.
My understanding is that our consciousness, while not understood in detail, arises through chemistry and physics. No need for a deity of any sort.

My recent reading suggests that there are other animals that exhibit that sense of self that leads you to your belief. Some dolphins, elephants, great apes appear to have self awareness. A knowledge that they are individuals and different from others of their kind, what does their god look like?

musterion
October 31st, 2015, 06:33 AM
The scriptures are emphatic that the man who denies the existence of Elohim is a fool. This is affirmed by the fact that He has placed the knowledge of Himself in each and every person and that His Almighty power is witnesses by the creation.

A person receives sufficient revelation to condemn himself.

That's pretty much it, according to Romans ch. 1.

PureX
October 31st, 2015, 06:54 AM
I have always been intrigued by debates on the existence of God and I can appreciate both sides and can see weaknesses on both sides. But I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate. I am with me every second of every day. I stand in wonder sometimes of it. I remember as a child being afraid of dying and once in a flash I felt the full sense of being alive and that scared me more. :)

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.The crux of the argument as I see it would be that nature has manifested transcendent expressions of existence: from matter; life, and then through life; consciousness. Thus proving that such existential transcendence is both real and natural.

Most common definitions of "God" fall into exactly this kind of transcendent existential state, or 'being'. And thereby the existence of life, and of consciousness offer real evidence for the further transcendent state called "God".

Also, that matter is 'conscious' in itself illustrates the existence of universal conscious 'being'.

Truster
October 31st, 2015, 07:17 AM
That's pretty much it, according to Romans ch. 1.

The fact you recognised the scriptures in what I posted lifts my spirit.

Puppet
October 31st, 2015, 07:38 AM
Ha ha ha, there's now proof at HTTP://www.Theomatics.com or Google Ivan panin. Ha ha ha enjoy the proofs.

exminister
October 31st, 2015, 08:40 AM
No, its entirely subjective. I could be a bizarre figment of your imagination or vice versa. :idunno:



Who's doing the asking? Prove to me that you exist ...then we both may put this issue to rest.



Clear sense of being?

Are you a mind, body, some odd commixture of both?

If you can't even prove yourself as existing, wherefore the idea of an external existing God?

When I was young I could fancifully entertain such ideas.
However I have live long enough to see this is not so. I have seen death, dying, suffering for which if this is just some dream of mine I would not set it up like this.
I have had a number of close friends and family members. I see baring mental illness or drugs we view our sense of self in much the same way. Society works just because of this.

If you are cut do you not bleed? I do.
We are far more similar than your questions would indicate. Science certainly shows how similar we really are.

exminister
October 31st, 2015, 09:25 AM
Not a pass. Your argument is that you simply do not/cannot understand how your sense of yourself, your consciousness, could arise. Your answer suggests a god, no doubt the god of the Bible.
My understanding is that our consciousness, while not understood in detail, arises through chemistry and physics. No need for a deity of any sort.

My recent reading suggests that there are other animals that exhibit that sense of self that leads you to your belief. Some dolphins, elephants, great apes appear to have self awareness. A knowledge that they are individuals and different from others of their kind, what does their god look like?

The same God.

You are jumping to such a conclusion as well. There is nothing in chemistry or physics that even hints at the creation/development of conscientiousness. I have never even heard of a possible path to it. Science fiction has entertained robots gaining conscientiousness. But it's essentially presented as a magical moment.

It is beyond the physical.

aikido7
October 31st, 2015, 09:49 AM
I have always been intrigued by debates on the existence of God and I can appreciate both sides and can see weaknesses on both sides. But I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate. I am with me every second of every day. I stand in wonder sometimes of it. I remember as a child being afraid of dying and once in a flash I felt the full sense of being alive and that scared me more. :)

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.Your "standing in wonder" is a good example of how both atheists and theists marvel at Creation. Whether or not a person is a believer or an unbeliever, they can still both say "WOW !!!" before the cosmos.

Although the "think, therefore I am" is the basis of all human thought, there are some trenchant criticisms of the idea:

There have been a number of criticisms of the argument. One concerns the nature of the step from "I am thinking" to "I exist." The contention is that this is a syllogistic inference, for it appears to require the extra premise: "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists", a premise Descartes did not justify. In fact, he conceded that there would indeed be an extra premise needed, but denied that the cogito is a syllogism (see below).

To argue that the cogito is not a syllogism, one may call it self-evident that "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists". In plain English, it seems incoherent to actually doubt that one exists and is doubting. Strict skeptics maintain that only the property of 'thinking' is indubitably a property of the meditator (presumably, they imagine it possible that a thing thinks but does not exist). This countercriticism is similar to the ideas of Jaakko Hintikka, who offers a nonsyllogistic interpretation of cogito ergo sum. He claimed that one simply cannot doubt the proposition "I exist". To be mistaken about the proposition would mean something impossible: I do not exist, but I am still wrong.

Perhaps a more relevant contention is whether the "I" to which Descartes refers is justified. In Descartes, The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams provides a history and full evaluation of this issue. Apparently, the first scholar who raised the problem was Pierre Gassendi. He "points out that recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. Were we to move from the observation that there is thinking occurring to the attribution of this thinking to a particular agent, we would simply assume what we set out to prove, namely, that there exists a particular person endowed with the capacity for thought". In other words, "the only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present".[15] The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks." In other words, the "I" in "I think" could be similar to the "It" in "It is raining." David Hume claims that the philosophers who argue for a self that can be found using reason are confusing "similarity" with "identity". This means that the similarity of our thoughts and the continuity of them in this similarity do not mean that we can identify ourselves as a self but that our thoughts are similar.[citation needed]

I cut and pasted this from Wikipedia.

Unfortunately all of the rational and logical "proofs" of God's existence have shown them to be lacking in any "smoking gun" evidence.

The human mind, being limited or finite, cannot apprehend the infinite God. We can only offer our interpretations of God just as did the ancient authors as well.

In my opinion this is because the experience of the divine is not rational or logical. It can only be indicated by metaphoric language.

chrysostom
October 31st, 2015, 09:56 AM
the best proof is entropy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)

the second best is a necessary uncaused cause

the third is man

PureX
October 31st, 2015, 10:02 AM
The same God.

You are jumping to such a conclusion as well. There is nothing in chemistry or physics that even hints at the creation/development of conscientiousness. I have never even heard of a possible path to it. Science fiction has entertained robots gaining conscientiousness. But it's essentially presented as a magical moment.

It is beyond the physical.We could inter-relate two discs, a stick, and a flat rectangle in an almost endless number of ways. And yet, when we inter-relate them in one certain way, they become a simply cart that could move a mountain. It's an example of "gestalt": when the whole so greatly exceeds the possibilities of the sum of the parts.

There would be no reason to ever presume that a specific arrangement of such shaped objects could somehow us the ability to move mountains. And yet one specific arrangement can. By what mechanism has this transcendency occurred? No one knows.

Just as there is nothing inherent to matter that could have given anyone reason to presume the emergence of life. And yet life did emerge. And there is nothing inherent to the emergence of life that could have led anyone to assume the idea of flying a kite. And yet from life, emerged the conscious idea of flying kites.

The point being that these examples of gestalt are unreasonably and unpredictably transcendent. We could not have foreseen them by studying the mere collection of their parts.

Just as we do not foresee "God" by studying the characteristics and mechanisms of physics. And yet there are these examples of transcendence all around us. Even IN us. So what fools we must be, indeed, to then look at nature and use it to declare that there is no transcendent being such as "God".

quip
October 31st, 2015, 10:04 AM
When I was young I could fancifully entertain such ideas.
However I have live long enough to see this is not so. I have seen death, dying, suffering for which if this is just some dream of mine I would not set it up like this.
I have had a number of close friends and family members. I see baring mental illness or drugs we view our sense of self in much the same way. Society works just because of this.

If you are cut do you not bleed? I do.
We are far more similar than your questions would indicate. Science certainly shows how similar we really are.

That's all fine and well...though how is this different than a dreamstate?
The point is you can't prove your existence let alone that of a transcendent being...namely god.

Knight
October 31st, 2015, 10:11 AM
That's all fine and well...though how is this different than a dreamstate?
The point is you can't prove your existence let alone that of a transcendent being...namely god.Do you exist?

quip
October 31st, 2015, 10:13 AM
Do you exist?

No. (just the ego perception)

chrysostom
October 31st, 2015, 10:21 AM
Do you exist?

only if you think

exminister
October 31st, 2015, 12:51 PM
No. (just the ego perception)

Then nothing matters?
If you are cut you may or may not believe? It's up to your ego to decide?

Desert Reign
October 31st, 2015, 01:30 PM
I have always been intrigued by debates on the existence of God and I can appreciate both sides and can see weaknesses on both sides. But I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate. I am with me every second of every day. I stand in wonder sometimes of it. I remember as a child being afraid of dying and once in a flash I felt the full sense of being alive and that scared me more. :)

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

I'm not trying to be contentious here and I appreciate your predicament. However, there is no logical proof of God's existence. You just need to learn to accept that.

For example, you begin with "is more powerful than straight logic" but you then continue with "I think therefore I am", which is nothing other than straight logic. If God could be proven to exist then there would be no need for moral choice. God would be no different to the laws of motion or our knowledge of chemistry. It's a dead horse. Descartes was wrong, so was Aquinas. Get used to it, there are better ways to spend your time and energies.

quip
October 31st, 2015, 02:26 PM
Then nothing matters?

Our ego can't help but make things matter...to the extent of clinging and suffering.


If you are cut you may or may not believe? It's up to your ego to decide?

This only presupposes a "you" as a bodily perception.
Does this "you" incorporate the same body since the day it was born; 10 years ago; yesterday?

Knight
October 31st, 2015, 02:32 PM
No. (just the ego perception)Fair enough. I guess I will delete your account on TOL. No sense in wasting database space on someone who doesn't exist.

Jonahdog
October 31st, 2015, 02:36 PM
The same God.

You are jumping to such a conclusion as well. There is nothing in chemistry or physics that even hints at the creation/development of conscientiousness. I have never even heard of a possible path to it. Science fiction has entertained robots gaining conscientiousness. But it's essentially presented as a magical moment.

It is beyond the physical.

Nope, no reason to think it is beyond physics and chemistry.

exminister
October 31st, 2015, 02:39 PM
the best proof is entropy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)

the second best is a necessary uncaused cause

the third is man

For me the order is reversed.
My point is it starts with me. This is the first thing I know. As I grow and develop I learn of others in how they are like and dislike me.

exminister
October 31st, 2015, 02:43 PM
Nope, no reason to think it is beyond physics and chemistry.


Why can't it be explained in those terms then?

Were you ever religious?

quip
October 31st, 2015, 02:44 PM
Fair enough. I guess I will delete your account on TOL. No sense in wasting database space on someone who doesn't exist.

What account? :think: ...:chuckle:

exminister
October 31st, 2015, 02:49 PM
Our ego can't help but make things matter...to the extent of clinging and suffering.



This only presupposes a "you" as a bodily perception.
Does this "you" incorporate the same body since the day it was born; 10 years ago; yesterday?

Our molecules die and new ones are generated but the conscience me does not flip random to different people from day to day. I can look at pictures and videos of me years ago and can remember how I felt in those times.

So can be cut and not bleed if your ego says so?

How do people die unexpectedly or so unwillingly?
If someone gets hit by a bus without seeing it why doesn't it pass through them?

quip
October 31st, 2015, 04:12 PM
Our molecules die and new ones are generated but the conscience me does not flip random to different people from day to day. I can look at pictures and videos of me years ago and can remember how I felt in those times.

So, "you" connot be pin-pointed via a distinct level of physicality but rather "you" exist as an incorporeal mind i.e. a collection of ideas, notions and memories?


So can be cut and not bleed if your ego says so?

How do people die unexpectedly or so unwillingly?
If someone gets hit by a bus without seeing it why doesn't it pass through them?

Bodies get injured, age and die. Though why do you care...you're just a wispy train of transient thoughts. Correct?

PureX
October 31st, 2015, 04:42 PM
I'm not trying to be contentious here and I appreciate your predicament. However, there is no logical proof of God's existence. You just need to learn to accept that.I agree entirely. However, there is reasonable evidence. Unfortunately, exminister is not doing a very well at presenting it. I think he's recognizing it, but not articulating it very well.

It is difficult to articulate, I admit.

George Affleck
November 1st, 2015, 02:03 PM
I have always been intrigued by debates on the existence of God and I can appreciate both sides and can see weaknesses on both sides. But I rarely hear this argument and I have never heard any real defense against this proof. It is both objective and subjective and is more powerful than straight logic which can be "in the eyes of the beholder".

I think therefore I am.

We can all agree to that. I exists or some part of me exists and it is quite intimate. I am with me every second of every day. I stand in wonder sometimes of it. I remember as a child being afraid of dying and once in a flash I felt the full sense of being alive and that scared me more. :)

How do those who don't believe in God account for this clear sense of being? How could a cold universe of molecules provide me with feelings of uniqueness, personality and full sense of separateness from other people and things? I could comprehend its' value in an evolutionary context, but don't have any understanding how it could possibly come to be without God.

Do you mean, I think, therefore He is?

exminister
November 3rd, 2015, 04:51 AM
Do you mean, I think, therefore He is?

Yes

Jonahdog
November 3rd, 2015, 04:54 AM
Do you mean, I think, therefore He is?

Interesting, suggests that outside of you, your god does not exist. Probably an accurate statement.

Jonahdog
November 3rd, 2015, 04:57 AM
Why can't it be explained in those terms then?

Were you ever religious?

Sure, explain your thoughts with chemistry and physics but a deity does not follow from there.

And yes, I was a believer at one time. Lots of religious education and Bible study.

exminister
November 3rd, 2015, 04:57 AM
I'm not trying to be contentious here and I appreciate your predicament. However, there is no logical proof of God's existence. You just need to learn to accept that.

For example, you begin with "is more powerful than straight logic" but you then continue with "I think therefore I am", which is nothing other than straight logic. If God could be proven to exist then there would be no need for moral choice. God would be no different to the laws of motion or our knowledge of chemistry. It's a dead horse. Descartes was wrong, so was Aquinas. Get used to it, there are better ways to spend your time and energies.

How do you view Romans 1:18-21 ?

exminister
November 3rd, 2015, 05:02 AM
Sure, explain your thoughts with chemistry and physics but a deity does not follow from there.

And yes, I was a believer at one time. Lots of religious education and Bible study.


Did you or do you still find yourself praying at least sub-consciously?
I have read atheists say that it is the last thing to go. The smokey wisp of a candle blown out? It indicates to me something intrinsic is going on.

Jonahdog
November 4th, 2015, 03:51 AM
Did you or do you still find yourself praying at least sub-consciously?
I have read atheists say that it is the last thing to go. The smokey wisp of a candle blown out? It indicates to me something intrinsic is going on.

No, I do not pray. I do swear less, no use taking the name of an imaginary deity in vain is there?

the only thing intrinsic going on is chemistry and physics. That is how your brain works.

CherubRam
November 4th, 2015, 05:30 AM
The proof that God exist is in the fact that spontaneous evolution of life is not possible in this universe. God evolved, then He created.

Jonahdog
November 4th, 2015, 06:07 AM
The proof that God exist is in the fact that spontaneous evolution of life is not possible in this universe. God evolved, then He created.

What did god evolve from? There was something before your god? What might that have been?

CherubRam
November 4th, 2015, 12:22 PM
What did god evolve from? There was something before your god? What might that have been?
From the subatomic, the primordial Dark Matter. A type of nothing, because it has no atomic bonds to form anything. God created gravity and gravitons to form the atomic elements of this Universe.

Desert Reign
November 4th, 2015, 12:50 PM
How do you view Romans 1:18-21 ?



For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God for salvation to every believer, both to Jew first and to Greek.


Paul opens up the main intent of the letter, which will be to show that Jews and Greeks are equal in the eyes of God. The only criterion for salvation is to believe. In the Roman church, there were both Jewish and gentile believers and we know from elsewhere in the New Testament that the Jewish believers considered themselves superior to the gentile believers. Paul refutes this vigorously in Romans. Not only is he not ashamed of the Gospel per se, but he is also not ashamed of preaching it to gentiles. Such a stance did indeed incur derision and opposition from Jews, both believers and not.
‘Power for salvation’ does not merely force something to happen but removes barriers and restores relationships. Belief does that because anyone can believe regardless of their background.
Paul mentions Jews as first priority before gentiles because the message of salvation came to Jews first, not because of any innate superiority of Jews.



For God’s justice is revealed in it from beginning to end through faith, as it is written “But the just one will live by faith”.

Habakkuk 2:4. God’s right way of doing things. The implication here is that keeping the law is not the right way of doing things. Hence there is no superiority of Jews over non-Jews.



For God’s anger is revealed from heaven against every kind of human wickedness and injustice where men suppress the truth unjustly.

In other words, justice is bigger than small-minded matters of distinctions between Jews and Greeks. The truth he is referring to here is not just any truth or truth in general but supremely the truth where God reveals himself.



For the knowledge of God was clear to them for God made it clear to them.

Perhaps Paul is just being tactful here and doesn’t want to spell out that it was the Jews that God had revealed himself to. He does eventually spell it out in ch. 2. It is not only to Jews, but Jews are who Paul has mainly in mind. ‘Them’ refers to those who suppress the truth unjustly. Paul is not saying that this applies to everybody but only to those who have certain knowledge of the truth and suppress that knowledge.



For his characteristics, unseen from the creation of the world, are made clearly visible by his special works. These characteristics are both his eternal power and his divinity, so that they are without excuse.

This explains how the aforementioned persons came to have a knowledge of the truth and hence justifies God’s response to them.
This verse should not simply be translated ‘by the things he has made’ but ‘by his special works’. In the same way that ‘make-up’ in modern English doesn’t mean just anything that has been made up but rather the specific ‘facial cosmetics’, so poiema in Greek doesn’t mean ‘thing made’. Rather, it means poem or work of art. The Jew would have understood this as meaning the special things God did in Israel. This brings us back to the idea of outlawing any notion that Jews were superior. Those Jews who knew God because of his work in Israel yet suppressed that truth aren't excused, just because they are Jews.
There is little here to indicate that Paul is advocating a universalist position whereby the whole world is automatically suppressing truth because God has already manifested himself to them in creation, as most other translations imply.
This verse would rather state the opposite, namely that God’s attributes of eternal power and divinity are invisible and have been ever since the creation of the world. However, these attributes become visible when you see God express them by doing something concrete in the world. Indeed it is the believer's job to announce the message to all the world, to make known what was previously unknown and to make visible what was previously unseen. As Paul later says ‘How can they believe in him whom they have not heard?’ (Rom 10:14)
Many people interpret this verse to mean that all mankind has been granted a revelation of God and therefore are worthy of judgement. However, Paul’s concern in Romans is not really with the issue of those who have never heard of God. One catches an idea of what he thinks about this in Acts 17:22-31 and there, there is no accusation against the ordinary Greeks along the lines of ‘You have had the chance to believe in God because he is manifested in creation’. Rather, Paul is sympathetic to them, quotes their own venerated literature and speaks of ‘times of ignorance’, exactly contradictory of the idea that they are without excuse because God had already revealed himself to them.



For although they knew God they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks but their thoughts degenerated into nonsense and their foolish heart was darkened.

Jamie Gigliotti
November 6th, 2015, 10:18 AM
Sure, explain your thoughts with chemistry and physics but a deity does not follow from there.

And yes, I was a believer at one time. Lots of religious education and Bible study.
Science can not tell me exactly where my thoughts are. I.E. an exact location in the brain. Logically, most here know that's because there is more than meets the eye.