Romans 1:20

[David Davidovich]

Here are two translations of Romans 1:20 from the same website:

New International Version
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Young's Literal Translation
for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable;

Therefore, this thread is open to anyone, but I wanted to ask the question: Do you think that God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen from what has been made since the creation of the world or not? And I'm looking for answers coming from the viewpoint of if there is a God, whether you believe there is or not. Also, I put this thread in Science and Religion Debate because I felt that scientific answers would eventually arise in this discussion. Plus, if you don't mind, I'll let someone else start the conversation off first.

 

[danieldemol]

Here are two translations of Romans 1:20 from the same website:


Therefore, this thread is open to anyone, but I wanted to ask the question: Do you think that God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen from what has been made since the creation of the world or not? And I'm looking for answers coming from the viewpoint of if there is a God, whether you believe there is or not. Also, I put this thread in Science and Religion Debate because I felt that scientific answers would eventually arise in this discussion. Plus, if you don't mind, I'll let someone else start the conversation off first.

Can something be clearly seen and yet invisible and undetectable?

At face value i would say probably not in my opinion.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Here are two translations of Romans 1:20 from the same website:


Therefore, this thread is open to anyone, but I wanted to ask the question: Do you think that God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen from what has been made since the creation of the world or not? And I'm looking for answers coming from the viewpoint of if there is a God, whether you believe there is or not. Also, I put this thread in Science and Religion Debate because I felt that scientific answers would eventually arise in this discussion. Plus, if you don't mind, I'll let someone else start the conversation off first.

Paul was making an argument from incredulity and ignorance. Logical fallacies.

 

[Sir Joseph]

Here are two translations of Romans 1:20 from the same website:

Therefore, this thread is open to anyone, but I wanted to ask the question: Do you think that God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen from what has been made since the creation of the world or not? And I'm looking for answers coming from the viewpoint of if there is a God, whether you believe there is or not. Also, I put this thread in Science and Religion Debate because I felt that scientific answers would eventually arise in this discussion. Plus, if you don't mind, I'll let someone else start the conversation off first.

You can't expect anyone rejecting the Bible to answer your question positively, so I'll step up to the plate since I've used this exact verse recently to convict unbelievers.

Before I studied Christian apologetics, I would gloss over this scripture and not give it much consideration upon people's responsibilities to believe in God. Now, after studying the scientific evidence for God, the message seems clear, powerful, and reasonable to me.

The most primitive or remote man can look up into the night sky and see the awesome display of stars that indicate a powerful creator of the universe. Today, we have much more to go on because of the laws of science we've discovered. These laws, such as the Law of Causality, 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of Biogenesis, and Laws of Information Science mandate a supernatural creator for the universe - a god of some sort.

While a child or mentally handicapped individual my not have the intellectual ability to understand nature or scientific laws, a rational person with an open heart to God will see his handprint all over the creation. Paul says this, and I believe it.

The evidence for God's existence is so apparent that God will not excuse an accountable person who denies it.

 

[101G]

Can something be clearly seen and yet invisible and undetectable?

At face value i would say probably not in my opinion.

GINOLJC to all,
Great topic. the seen and the unseen. atoms make up molecules and molecules make up matter. can we naturally see atoms with our naked eyes? no. but with the asst. of the microscope we can, but what are the LIMITS of the microscope. well atoms are made of a. Protons, neutrons, and electrons. ok, but these particles are made up of we call quarks. now my question is this, "what make up quarks". can we see with aides beyond quarks? how about gluon. and what arethey made of?

so, how small dose it goes? only God knows. so, the scriptures are right, Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

101G.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Can someone please explain to me how one can see something that is not visible?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here are two translations of Romans 1:20 from the same website:


Therefore, this thread is open to anyone, but I wanted to ask the question: Do you think that God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen from what has been made since the creation of the world or not? And I'm looking for answers coming from the viewpoint of if there is a God, whether you believe there is or not. Also, I put this thread in Science and Religion Debate because I felt that scientific answers would eventually arise in this discussion. Plus, if you don't mind, I'll let someone else start the conversation off first.

Those invisible qualities are a definite indicator that God only exists in people's heads.

God can be real and alive enough in the cerebel realm, but in the waking realm, God simply isn't there where it's conclusive enough there is nothing whatsoever in terms of qualities attributed to God to be found or pointed at.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can someone please explain to me how one can see something that is not visible?

People claim real world tactile influences that are unexplained such as dark matter exists, without realizing that dark matter is just a placeholder term of a yet to be discovered cause.

Some think God exists in a similar fashion , except there is nothing influencial that can be attributed to God unless they agree God is a placeholder term as well , and can additionally point out a particular influence that they think is from God.

 

[viole]

You can't expect anyone rejecting the Bible to answer your question positively, so I'll step up to the plate since I've used this exact verse recently to convict unbelievers.

Before I studied Christian apologetics, I would gloss over this scripture and not give it much consideration upon people's responsibilities to believe in God. Now, after studying the scientific evidence for God, the message seems clear, powerful, and reasonable to me.

The most primitive or remote man can look up into the night sky and see the awesome display of stars that indicate a powerful creator of the universe. Today, we have much more to go on because of the laws of science we've discovered. These laws, such as the Law of Causality, 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of Biogenesis, and Laws of Information Science mandate a supernatural creator for the universe - a god of some sort.

While a child or mentally handicapped individual my not have the intellectual ability to understand nature or scientific laws, a rational person with an open heart to God will see his handprint all over the creation. Paul says this, and I believe it.

The evidence for God's existence is so apparent that God will not excuse an accountable person who denies it.

At best, observing the so called wonders of creation, might induce us to believe in a god, goddess, or gods as creators of the Universe. It does not tell us that said creator has a Son, who sort of died for us to wash sin, resurrected and will let us live in Heaven if we accept Him in our hearts, and all that stuff.

there is no direct link between, say, the beautiful sky and the stars, and all that theology.

therefore, if those who believe in whatever God, by observing nature, are the ones who DO NOT need an excuse, we can infer that salvation is guaranteed also to believers in the Great Juju at the bottom of the sea, Zeus, and so on.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Yazata]

Therefore, this thread is open to anyone, but I wanted to ask the question: Do you think that God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen from what has been made since the creation of the world or not? And I'm looking for answers coming from the viewpoint of if there is a God, whether you believe there is or not. Also, I put this thread in Science and Religion Debate because I felt that scientific answers would eventually arise in this discussion. Plus, if you don't mind, I'll let someone else start the conversation off first.

In that regard, I like Eastern Orthodox Christianity's essence/energies distinction.

This is the idea that God is unknowable in his essence and that he can only be known by his effects here in the world of human experience.

So in that spirit, I guess that I'd say 'no'. God is unapproachable and incomprehensible in his essence (which I take to be the invisible qualities).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence%E2%80%93energies_distinction.

 

[exchemist]

Here are two translations of Romans 1:20 from the same website:


Therefore, this thread is open to anyone, but I wanted to ask the question: Do you think that God's invisible qualities have been clearly seen from what has been made since the creation of the world or not? And I'm looking for answers coming from the viewpoint of if there is a God, whether you believe there is or not. Also, I put this thread in Science and Religion Debate because I felt that scientific answers would eventually arise in this discussion. Plus, if you don't mind, I'll let someone else start the conversation off first.

It seems to me St. Paul states it rather too strongly, but that may be because of when he lived. It is not evident today that creation shows the hand of a supernatural creator, though many people - including many scientists, by the way - continue to feel it does. Back in St Paul's day, I suppose the wonders of nature must have seemed designed, given that the principles of nature that give rise to the order that we see had yet to be uncovered.

The New Jerusalem Bible translation, starting at verse 19 and continuing to verse 21 (I always feel a bit of context helps) is as follows:-

"For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them [he means the Gentiles] : ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind's understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse.: they knew God and yet they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but their arguments became futile and their uncomprehending minds were darkened."

St. Paul here seems to be contradicting himself. On the one hand he says the hand of God in the world is obvious and they have no excuse for not seeing this, and on the other he speaks of their "uncomprehending minds", so evidently they do NOT see it, in his opinion. But then he goes on to say that these people set up all manner of other deities to which they attributed the workings of the world:-

"While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid that they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an imitation, for the image of a mortal human being , or of birds, or animals, or crawling things."

So here he's saying they DID see it, but misattributed it, in his opinion.

Typical St. Paul - all rather convoluted and confused.

Taking all this together and bearing in mind he was writing to the nascent Christian community in Rome, I think one has to see this as a Jeremiad against the religious practices of the Roman Empire, then regarded as the most culturally sophisticated society of the time. He's saying they've managed to get it all wrong, in spite of their supposed cleverness.

As with anything in the bible, I think it is important to see what is said in its historical context and not simply pluck verses out of their context and try to apply them literally today without interpretation.

 

[exchemist]

You can't expect anyone rejecting the Bible to answer your question positively, so I'll step up to the plate since I've used this exact verse recently to convict unbelievers.

Before I studied Christian apologetics, I would gloss over this scripture and not give it much consideration upon people's responsibilities to believe in God. Now, after studying the scientific evidence for God, the message seems clear, powerful, and reasonable to me.

The most primitive or remote man can look up into the night sky and see the awesome display of stars that indicate a powerful creator of the universe. Today, we have much more to go on because of the laws of science we've discovered. These laws, such as the Law of Causality, 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of Biogenesis, and Laws of Information Science mandate a supernatural creator for the universe - a god of some sort.

While a child or mentally handicapped individual my not have the intellectual ability to understand nature or scientific laws, a rational person with an open heart to God will see his handprint all over the creation. Paul says this, and I believe it.

The evidence for God's existence is so apparent that God will not excuse an accountable person who denies it.

As I've observed before, there is in modern science no "Law of Biogenesis" nor any "Law of Information", so far as I am aware. What are you thinking of?

 

[Sir Joseph]

As I've observed before, there is in modern science no "Law of Biogenesis" nor any "Law of Information", so far as I am aware. What are you thinking of?

A 2 second Google search on the law of biogenesis would have shown you dozens of web pages on the subject. Here's the simplest definition from biologyonline.com:

"The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material."

There is also a second genetics principle tied to this law by creationists: that gene mutations have limits, thus life produces only life of its same kind. Both cases are scientifically valid to date with no known exceptions - thus a law of science.

Another quick search on the the laws of information science will show that they are numerous and complex. My specific point is not readily found in secular sources, and I am content with relying on my Christian apologetic sources because they are intuitively rational - like the law causality. Simply:

Wherever we see information, be it a computer code, written message, video, audio, or other imaginable format, it always originates from a mind. While nature or accidents may form natural patterns, information with meaning requires intelligence. There are no exceptions to date - thus a law of science.

I won't get into a debate over these laws because they're ignored or rejected by evolutionists that are committed to their presuppositional viewpoint, regardless of the evidence. But for those individuals with an open heart to God, trying to reconcile the Bible with current scientific evidence, they should appreciate that the two are fully compatible. This only makes sense, since laws of science require a lawmaker, and that lawmaker would have been the Creator of the universe.

 

[exchemist]

A 2 second Google search on the law of biogenesis would have shown you dozens of web pages on the subject. Here's the simplest definition from biologyonline.com:

"The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material."

There is also a second genetics principle tied to this law by creationists: that gene mutations have limits, thus life produces only life of its same kind. Both cases are scientifically valid to date with no known exceptions - thus a law of science.

Another quick search on the the laws of information science will show that they are numerous and complex. My specific point is not readily found in secular sources, and I am content with relying on my Christian apologetic sources because they are intuitively rational - like the law causality. Simply:

Wherever we see information, be it a computer code, written message, video, audio, or other imaginable format, it always originates from a mind. While nature or accidents may form natural patterns, information with meaning requires intelligence. There are no exceptions to date - thus a law of science.

I won't get into a debate over these laws because they're ignored or rejected by evolutionists that are committed to their presuppositional viewpoint, regardless of the evidence. But for those individuals with an open heart to God, trying to reconcile the Bible with current scientific evidence, they should appreciate that the two are fully compatible. This only makes sense, since laws of science require a lawmaker, and that lawmaker would have been the Creator of the universe.

There’s all kinds of stuff on the internet, but not all of it is modern science.

The “Law of Biogenesis” was a c.19th statement, formulated to dispel the pre-scientific notion of spontaneous generation that was still around at that time. It forms no part of modern science.

I note you have been unable to cite any “Law of Information Science”. That will be because there is nothing in modern science with that title.

I quite agree that the bible can be reconciled with science. That, after all, is the position of the mainstream Christian churches. But that does not rely on resorting to pseudoscience, as you seem to be doing. Sadly, the demi-monde of creationist "apologetics" seems to be full of such dishonesty, exploiting the ignorance of their target audience of fellow-creationists who don't have much of a science education.

Almost everything you have posted about science so far seems to be false. In particular, the claim that there is a limit to gene mutations seems to have no foundation, or none that I can trace. Can you produce a reputable scientific source for it?

You are of course fully entitled to your own personal beliefs, but you are not entitled to misrepresent science in doing so. If you do that here, where other people can read these deceptions and might be taken in by them, you must expect to have them challenged.

 

[RestlessSoul]

To some of us, evidence of God is everywhere; the universe and everything in it is, to us, the manifestation of the will of the creator. The more we learn about the universe, it's possible origins, the forces that animate it, and the laws that seemingly govern it's unfolding wonders, the more miraculous the whole thing seems. Obviously not everyone sees things this way. Life's all about perceptions.

 

[exchemist]

To some of us, evidence of God is everywhere; the universe and everything in it is, to us, the manifestation of the will of the creator. The more we learn about the universe, it's possible origins, the forces that animate it, and the laws that seemingly govern it's unfolding wonders, the more miraculous the whole thing seems. Obviously not everyone sees things this way. Life's all about perceptions.

Yes, that is a much more intelligent way of looking at it. Science can describe the underlying order in nature (what is sometimes called the "laws of nature", though I dislike the term) and the mechanisms by which that order leads to the world we see around us, but it cannot account for why that underlying order should exist. As far as science goes, it just does.

 

[pearl]

Here are two translations of Romans 1:20 from the same website:

As with anything in the bible, I think it is important to see what is said in its historical context and not simply pluck verses out of their context and try to apply them literally today without interpretation.

Absolutely, without context there is only pretext. And often with reference to the only Scripture available to the NT authors. There is an interesting
similarity in Wisdom 13.

 

[Treks]

Can someone please explain to me how one can see something that is not visible?

Giving a gift (visible) to express your gratitude (invisible).
Painting an artwork (visible) to display what you see in your imagination (invisible).
Standing up to your co-workers bully (visible) which indicates your honourable character (invisible).

 

[SalixIncendium]

Giving a gift (visible) to express your gratitude (invisible).
Painting an artwork (visible) to display what you see in your imagination (invisible).
Standing up to your co-workers bully (visible) which indicates your honourable character (invisible).

I suppose I was equating "see" with the sense organs that see....the eyes.

After looking up "see" in a dictionary, I see an alternate definition that means "recognize." I guess I would just use the term "recognize" to identify the three invisible items you list.

 

[Treks]

I suppose I was equating "see" with the sense organs that see....the eyes.

After looking up "see" in a dictionary, I see an alternate definition that means "recognize." I guess I would just use the term "recognize" to identify the three invisible items you list.

I suppose "recognize" works.

Other translations express the verse differently. You might find one of them easier to understand.

Romans 1:20 - Compare Bible Verse Translations

Compare Bible translations of Romans 1:20 using all available Bible versions and commentary. "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse"

www.biblestudytools.com