➘ #18 Source Article

◉ A plain English walkthrough of the symbolic logic above.

1. Everyone sees the same natural world.
   Mountains, stars, oceans, and forests are available for observation by all human beings, regardless of culture or location.
2. If God’s qualities were truly obvious in nature, then people everywhere would draw the same conclusion.
   If divine attributes were as “clearly seen” as Romans 1 claims, cultural background would make little difference—everyone would recognize the Christian God.
3. But in reality, people draw very different conclusions.
   Some interpret nature as pointing to many gods, some to spirits, others to natural forces, and still others to no gods at all.
4. So the Christian God is not clearly revealed by nature.
   If the revelation were obvious, human interpretations would converge; instead, they diverge sharply.

5. For accountability to be fair, four conditions must be met: clarity, specificity, universality, and proportionality.
   • Clarity: The evidence must be intelligible to all.
   • Specificity: The evidence must point to the Christian God, not just a vague creator.
   • Universality: The evidence must be equally accessible across cultures.
   • Proportionality: The severity of responsibility must match the strength of the evidence.
6. Nature fails all four conditions.
   • It is ambiguous, so it lacks clarity.
   • It does not identify the Christian God uniquely, so it lacks specificity.
   • Belief tracks geography and culture, so it lacks universality.
   • Eternal consequences far outweigh the available evidence, so it lacks proportionality.
7. Therefore, nature cannot ground fair culpability.
   It doesn’t meet the minimal standards required for just accountability.

8. If culpability really rested on nature alone, the reasoning chain would need to be short and obvious.
   People would need to be able to move directly from observing the natural world to recognizing the Christian God.
9. But the actual reasoning chain is long and fragile.
   It requires moving from awe at nature, to belief in design, to belief in a designer, to belief that the designer is personal, to belief in an omnipotent deity, to identifying that deity as the Christian God, to recognizing divine law, and finally to recognizing personal failure.
10. This chain is too complex and culture-dependent to expect from all people.
    Many steps require doctrinal scaffolding or prior religious exposure that nature itself does not provide.
11. Therefore, culpability based on nature alone is unjust.
    People cannot be fairly held responsible for failing to make such a complicated set of inferences.

Final Step

Conclusion: The natural world does not provide the clarity, specificity, universality, or proportionality necessary for fair accountability. Romans 1’s claim that all people are “without excuse” collapses. Universal culpability cannot be grounded in nature alone.

◉ Flowing Narrative Summary

All human beings have access to the same natural world. We all see the mountains, the stars, the oceans, and the forests. If the Christian God’s attributes were as “clearly seen” in nature as Paul claims in Romans 1, then cultural background should not matter; everyone would recognize the same deity. Yet what we actually find is radical diversity in interpretation. Some traditions conclude there are many gods, some discern spirits, others perceive only impersonal natural processes, and still others conclude there are no gods at all. Rather than converging on a single recognition of the Christian God, humanity diverges into mutually exclusive worldviews. This divergence shows that God’s qualities are not self-evident in nature.

For culpability to be fairly assigned, certain standards must be met: clarity, specificity, universality, and proportionality. Evidence must be intelligible without special background, must point specifically to the Christian God rather than to vague or competing hypotheses, must be equally accessible across cultures, and must impose responsibilities that are proportionate to the strength of the evidence available. Yet nature fails on every count. It is ambiguous rather than clear, interpretable in multiple incompatible ways rather than uniquely specific. Belief tracks geography and culture, not universal recognition, and the consequences said to follow disbelief are disproportionate to the equivocal evidence that nature provides. This means natural revelation cannot provide a fair basis for universal accountability.

Even more, if culpability rested on nature alone, the path from observation to recognition would need to be short and obvious. But the reasoning chain is long and fragile. One must begin with awe, infer design, move to the idea of a designer, assume the designer is personal, attribute omnipotence and omniscience, then identify this figure as the Christian God, discern divine law, and finally recognize one’s own failure to meet it. Such a chain of inferences requires cultural scaffolding, doctrinal exposure, or prior teaching that nature itself does not supply. Expecting every person to traverse this path is unreasonable.

The conclusion is clear. Nature does not provide the clarity, specificity, universality, or proportionality necessary to ground universal culpability. Romans 1’s claim that all people are “without excuse” collapses under examination. If fairness requires that accountability be based on accessible and unmistakable evidence, then holding humanity responsible for failing to recognize the Christian God through nature is incoherent. The natural world may inspire awe and wonder, but it cannot bear the theological burden Paul places upon it.