Is Romans 1:18-20 the Cosmological arument for God?

[shackleton]

Romans 1:18-20, "18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

Is Paul arguing here that the complexity of things leads man to a correct understanding of Yahweh, the God of the Hebrew bible? Or that they already know God because that truth has been implanted in them at creation and now they are suppressing the truth they have so God gives them over to unrighteousness and then must judge them for it?

I guess the gist of what I am asking is, is nature sufficient to lead man to a true understanding of Yahweh or does it just lead to an understanding of a god like that of Plato or Aristotle? Are these people worshipping Yahweh and know it and suppress that truth in unrighteousness and begin to worship things in their own way or in their blindness are simply worshipping a false god to begin with? They already know Yahweh and choose to ignore him.

Does the Cosmological, Ontological or Teleological arguments lead one to the true God, Yahweh, or just to a pagan deity? If it leads one to a true understanding of God then were Plato and Aristotle worshipping Yahweh?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Natural revelation can only reveal the only God there is--the one who made it and rules and preserves it. But the content of that revelation is only sufficient to bring a man into judgment.

Natural man does not receive that revelation without resentment or resistance. So, a Plato or Aristotle or anyone only takes that knowledge and inevitably corrupts it. The "god" he ends up worshipping is not the God (Jehovah) who revealed himself in nature, but a substitute.

 

[Skyler]

The cosmological argument logically reveals only that God is eternal, immaterial, personal, and immensely powerful. The teleological argument reveals that He is complex and highly ordered. The ontological argument is on logically shaky ground to begin with, so it doesn't do much of anything.

This provides a general abstract picture of some being that could be Jehovah, Allah(I think), or some deist god that doesn't interact with the world today.

 

[shackleton]

I figured it could just as easily be the god of Islam, The Force, or any other non-specific higher power but not Yahweh the God of the Hebrews. General Revelation does not lead one to Special Revelation. The complexity of an atom does not make anyone believe that they need to repent or tell us why Jesus died and what his death meant.

 

[Skyler]

I figured it could just as easily be the god of Islam, The Force, or any other non-specific higher power but not Yahweh the God of the Hebrews. General Revelation does not lead one to Special Revelation. The complexity of an atom does not make anyone believe that they need to repent or tell us why Jesus died and what his death meant.

Well, not the Force; the Force is technically impersonal, isn't it?

 

[steven-nemes]

Skyler: The teleological argument, if at all valid, would reveal not that God is complex and highly ordered, but that he is intelligent and can produce complex and highly ordered systems--an important qualification to make, I think. And Plantinga's version of the ontological argument would prove that a wholly good, powerful, intelligent being would exist in every possible world.

 

[shackleton]

I figured it could just as easily be the god of Islam, The Force, or any other non-specific higher power but not Yahweh the God of the Hebrews. General Revelation does not lead one to Special Revelation. The complexity of an atom does not make anyone believe that they need to repent or tell us why Jesus died and what his death meant.

Well, not the Force; the Force is technically impersonal, isn't it?

The god of Plato and Aristotle would not have to be personal. Creation and intelligence does not imply that the being is personal, just complex.
Aliens could have started it all. Any being that is smart enough to come up with a plan and follow it.