An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[GrandizerII]

I think we can dismiss inconsistent revelation as a proof against God pretty easily. The whole field of Natural Theology is designed to argue for the existence of God without reference to revelation. Traditionally they say that certain things about God can be demonstrated merely through self-evident statements (e.g. things in the world change) and the logical consequences of those, while certain other things (e.g. the Trinity) cannot. Many people have accepted the demonstrated parts without the revealed parts.

Without reference to revelation, most every argument for [the existence of] God that I've encountered (and that I can recall off the top of my head) has turned out to be an argument, at least in "skeletal" form, for a naturalistic case as much as for some being that's "beyond nature". Considering such arguments aren't compelling enough to make a strong case for God, then I don't think one can reasonably say that theologians have been able to establish the existence of God through some compelling arguments, irrespective of the strength of their convictions. And in this light, theology remains a field in which the theologian must assume (rather than has been shown) the existence of God has been well established when making arguments about the non-existential aspects of such a being.

Furthermore, in the case of Christianity, a lot of Christian theologians nevertheless appeal to revelation even when they sometimes make arguments for God without reference to revelation, and so when you say that the "whole field of Natural Theology is designed to argue for the existence of God without reference to revelation", this is true, but it also comes off as a little "hand-wavy" regarding the fact that famous theologians like Aquinas have still nevertheless appealed to revelation in some of their arguments.

---

Like so many Internet atheists, you are attacking Ken Ham and other simpletons, and various straw men. Since you don't know what theology really says and you don't want to learn it, that's where it will stay for the time being.

No, he has also critiqued Aquinas, and you didn't really address his critique regardless of the reason you have stated for not addressing it and regardless of whether his critique was weak or not.