What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1?

Creation vs. Evolution: I Hope, For Galileo's Sake, He Did Retract · Parallax and Heliocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: What's the Nature of Theism and the Pagan Alternative to Theism in Romans 1?

I'm listening to (or watching without sound but with subtitles) a video where Keaton Halley argues from Romans 1 that humanity is coeval with creation.

However, while he's perfectly right that mankind since Adam and Eve (and that being at the beginning of the world) have been able to conclude for God, he says "we can know from watching creation, there is a Creator" ... but that's not exactly what St. Paul says.

It makes sense in the modern world, where we are aware that an eternal stedy-state universe with an eternal steady-state earth isn't an option.

Hydrogen meets Hydrogen, becomes Deuterium. Deuterium meets Deuterium, becomes Helium. Happens over and over again in the Sun and all self luminous stars. It's a one way process. Hydrogen is being depleted. Helium is being replenished. There is no opposed process known to science. If this had been going on since all eternity, Hydrogen would already be completely depleted and Helium would be all that was left. Or heavier elements. However, given spectral lines, we know Hydrogen is more abundant than Helium:

For example, the abundance of oxygen in pure water can be measured in two ways: the mass fraction is about 89%, because that is the fraction of water's mass which is oxygen. However, the mole fraction is about 33% because only 1 atom of 3 in water, H₂O, is oxygen. As another example, looking at the mass fraction abundance of hydrogen and helium in both the universe as a whole and in the atmospheres of gas-giant planets such as Jupiter, it is 74% for hydrogen and 23–25% for helium; while the (atomic) mole fraction for hydrogen is 92%, and for helium is 8%, in these environments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

So, given the universe had a beginning, a finite time ago, sorry, I'm repeating myself, how did it begin? And we can rule out Big Bang from spiral galaxies "13 billion light years away" and we can rule out Abiogenesis from the fact that Miller Urey conditions can't provide materials for cell membranes (which are essential to preserving amino acids from disintegrating in Miller Urey conditions) and we can rule out non-human apes turning to men because of language, as I have argued here:

HGL's F.B. writings: Challenge not met
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2026/03/challenge-not-met.html

If you aren't a linguist having never heard of "dual patterning" or "double articulation", check out the link I give in the status on the forum:

All Human Languages are Human, None are "Primitive"
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2026/03/all-human-languages-are-human-none-are.html

So, yes, we are in a position to argue not just generally for God in a Theistic sense, but specifically for a Creator God. There was never when God wasn't (and this is true of God the Son too, see the condemnation of Arians in the Fourth Century), but there was a beginning when the creation hadn't been before. And a beginning that could only originate from a conscious God, not from sth like unconscious space-time with natural laws.

By the way, in Einsteinian terms, Big Bang is a contradiction in terms. "Once, all of them matter and energy in the universe was concentrated in a point as small as an atom, then it expanded" — this doesn't work if space itself is a kind of material substance or force field. Because that one would have been expanding, but there is no extension to measure of it as a whole apart from what it contains, so the logic consequence would be, a universe as big as ours could "in our universe" take up the space of an atom, but not that the universe could gain in size against the outside, since there is no space outside it. Space can't expand, even if finite, since there are no "empty space coordinates" for it to expand in.

But, Lucretius didn't believe in the Big Bang. I'll actually go to the Pagans first. Specifically the most non-Theistic ones, the precursors (very indirectly) of modern Atheism.

He had no spectral lines. He had no idea of what happens as hydrogen to helium fusion in the Sun. He had no indication the universe had a beginning.

In the 12th C. the Shroud of Turin could have been a forgery. After Secondo Pia and Barry Schwortz we can't. Just the same way, we know the universe had a beginning, but in the 12th C we didn't know it and Lucretius didn't know it. Noah knew it because he recalled that Adam had been created a celibate adult, but some of the peoples after Babel forgot that and therefore didn't know it any more. St. Paul speaks of what observation can tell us. Even without the tradition from Adam and Eve.

Can you think of a specific observational item, not "special instruments" but "naked eye" observation, since the beginning of the world, which tells us of God, but not necessarily that He created? I can. If we take the words "his eternal power also" these are in the Greek: ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις and 126. aidios has two definitions:

1. (forward and backward) eternal
2. (forward only) everlasting

It's both, if it's everlasting, as we observe it to be, it can't be acquired from somewhere else, so it's eternal in the first sense too, but what we observe is, "no God didn't get tired, He gave us another day" or "another night".

St. Ambrose puts it in a very nice way in a hymn before going to bed (technically Compline, I think, no, Saturday Vespers), here:

DEUS creator omnium
polique rector, vestiens
diem decoro lumine,
noctem soporis gratia

Here is a translation:

GOD that all things didst create
and the heavens doth regulate,
Who doth clothe the day with light,
and with gracious sleep the night....

So, "didst create" is a statement of the past and is known through faith. But the rest of it "and the heavens doth regulate, / Who doth clothe the day with light, / and with gracious sleep the night...." is known by observation. This is the kind of thing we observe and which St. Paul speaks of.

What was the Atheist response? It actually wasn't Heliocentrism, Lucrece was also a Geocentric, though not as much as Sts. Paul and Ambrose. Here is a quote from a translation of De Rerum Natura, book I, 979 to 1068:

Air divides the hills; the earth
Creates the sea, and the sea gives birth
To it, and so it goes. The traits of space
Are such that even thunderbolts can’t race
Across the endless tracts of time, nor may
They rest awhile while they go on their way;
There’s such a huge abundance spread around
In all directions: lest a thing is bound
By limits, every body must enclose
Each void, each void each body, and this shows
That both of them possess no boundaries:
Unless it hemmed the other, one of these
Would be extended, stretched immeasurably,
And thus the earth, the bright-blue sky, the sea,
Mankind and the immortals could not stay
An hour in place, for all things, swept away,
Would through the massive void be borne, indeed
Would never have combined to be the seed
Of anything. For prime germs certainly
Did not with any perspicacity
Fashion themselves in order or decide
What movements for each one they should provide,
But, since they’re multitudinous and change
In many ways among the All, they range
Abroad, pushed out and beaten, venturing
All kinds of movement and of coupling
Until they settle down eventually
With those designs through which totality
Is made: for countless years they’ve been protected
Now they acceptably have been projected
Into their proper motions – thus the sea
By all the streams is freshened constantly,
The earth, lapped by the vapours of the sun,
Brings forth new brood, all creatures, every one,
Flourish and all the gliding fires which flow
Above us yet live on. They could not, though,
Have managed this at all had no supply
Of matter risen from the void, whereby
They could repair lost things. With scarcity
Of food beasts waste away, while similarly
All things must fade when matter, blown aside
Somehow, is then unable to provide
Succour, nor from outside can blows maintain
The world’s united sum. For blows can rain
Often and check a part while others come
Along, enabled to fill up the sum;
But meanwhile they are often forced to spring,
Thus to the primal germs contributing
A space and time for flight that they may be
Borne from this union to liberty.
So many things, we’re brought to understand,
Must rise, and yet the blows must be at hand
Always in order that there’ll always be
A force of matter universally.
Don’t listen to those people who profess
That all things inward to the centre press,
Dear Memmius, and that the entire world
Stands firmly while no outward blows are hurled
Against it, since neither their depth nor height
Can be unbound and all things are pressed tight
Into the centre. Therefore, do not think
That heavy weights beneath the earth can shrink
Upon it, having striven from below
To settle upside down, as images show
Upon the ocean. They also propound
That every breathing thing wanders around
And can’t fall up to the sky any more than we
Can reach the heavens by flying; when they see
The sun, the constellations of the night
Are what we view - we thus detach our sight
From theirs, our night coequal to their day.
These dreams have made these people fools since they
Embrace them faultily, for there can’t be
A centre when there is infinity.

So, his point is, the Geocentrism we observe is kind of a whirlpool movement, by lack of stability. It is also an illusion from lack of circumspection insofar as Earth is only a local centre. Much as modern Heliocentrism isn't cosmic Heliocentrism, but makes the Sun only centre of the locality known as the "Solar System".

This obviously depends on lots of unobserved assumptions, not quite unlike, in our modern Atheism, "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". He is asking us to take unobserved "infinity" as inherent in things that are observed as finite, having limits.

So, in contrast, St. Paul tells us we can trust our perception, we don't have to fumble with unproven assumptions in the unknown, especially where they contradict what we know of things by observation, Geocentrism really is absolute, movement isn't just a whirlpool effect, and it comes from God.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Easter Thursday
9.IV.2026