The theology of the Catholic faith rises or falls on the evidence for Gods existence

[Charlemagne_II]

I may have missed something. Can you reproduce the exact passage from Paul to which you refer?

Thanks, Charlie

 

[JohnDamian]

I may have missed something. Can you reproduce the exact passage from Paul to which you refer?

Thanks, Charlie

Romans 1:20

The understanding through what has been made illustrates that we can come to have faith in God through the reason of what has been made (a posteriori logic).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

The understanding through what has been made illustrates that we can come to have faith in God through the reason of what has been made.

This passage is of no use to the atheist because he tends to believe that the universe was not created, and therefore has no need of a Creator.

However, the theist can see some merit in it as a rational argument, not conclusive so much as strongly suggestive, that if everything that exist at one time did not exist, and was made, then why shouldn’t that be true of the universe itself. The existence of a Creator is therefore logically feasible to the theist, even if not absolutely proven to the atheist.

 

[JohnDamian]

However, the theist can see some merit in it as a rational argument, not conclusive so much as strongly suggestive, that if everything that exist at one time did not exist, and was made, then why shouldn’t that be true of the universe itself. The existence of a Creator is therefore logically feasible to the theist, even if not absolutely proven to the atheist.

The fact that God has been shown to exist with both a posteriori arguments (Summa fratris Alexandri) and a priori arguments (Proslogion) is beside the point.

The matter of fact is; going back to the original theme of this topic is that:

The bible claims we can know God by Reason of what is made.

Therefore; if an atheist could generate an argument against the ability or efficacy of both a priori and a posteriori argumentation then the atheist would be able to demonstrate that the bible had flaws (Rom 1;20).

Please note; I am not saying the bible is flawed; or that logic is wrong; merely that it is the case that if an atheist were to debunk the claim in Rom 1:20; **(if &) then **we would have to accept that the bible is wrong.