Thread: Presuppositions & Evidences...

Romans 1:19 "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." So this would be general revelation from which we contrive natural theology (as Sproul would say). I don't see how our knowledge of God could be a priori. Without seeing His creation which includes ourselves (thus experiencing it which would be a posteriori) we would be oblivious to God. God states that His invisible attributes, eternal power, and divine nature are seen in nature. To see nature (general revelation) is to experience it and to conceive an idea about general revelation (natural theology). I don't believe that Romans 1 is saying that we have an inborn or innate revelation of God apart from what He has demonstrated through His creation which includes mankind. One would have to be oblivious to their surroundings including themselves and only a brain-dead person could be so oblivious. Am I missing something here?

One thing Van Til always stressed was that you can never separate the facts(evidence) from the interpretation (rational apriori). So the facts lead by themselves without applying human rationality mean and therefore prove nothing without apriori rationality giving them meaning.

Thanks for all the comments.
Something that I learned from studying history is that facts (of history) don't come with their own interpretation tags --they don't speak for themselves.

But, when it comes to creation (biblically speaking), do those facts "speak for themselves" in testifying to God's existence?

Or do we still need to presuppose the existence of God (from a Vantillian point of view)?