Pascal, Paley & Paul

From: Scott Tucker (
Date: Mon Aug 27 2001 - 23:33:43 EDT

  • Next message: Scott Tucker: "Re: [ASA]Paley and Pascal"

    Hello George,

    It is most apparent to me that the existence of God is never really argued
    in scripture, it is accepted a priori. I also agree that the scriptural
    approach to explaining God is revealing Him though Christ.

    I wasn't sure whether you were referring to a cosmological or teleological
    argument in reference to using "nature as a proof of God's existence."

    I suppose I interpreted "nature as proof" as a form of teleological
    argument. I realize that Paul is not making a direct argument for the
    existence of God, but he does seem to wonder why people won't recognize (and
    "glorify") the Designer, inferring identity from his designs, ala Paley.

    I have not noticed anywhere in scripture a cosmological argument. Some have
    suggested Ps. 19:1-3, but I see how it ascribes necessary attributes, not

    Thanks for the response. I have a lot I want to learn about apologetics,
    and a lot of reading to absorb. This is still pretty new territory for me.

    --Grace and Peace,
    Scott Tucker

    on 8/27/01 9:21 PM, george murphy wrote:
    ...However, I think Pascal is about 99.9% right here here. In Romans 1 Paul
    is not making an appeal to his readers to believe in the existence of God
    because of the evidence of nature. What he is saying is that people should
    recognize God's deity and power from creation but that in fact they don't -
    not that they don't believe in any God at all but that they misrepresent God
    and worship things other than the true God. I.e., the problem is bad
    natural theology. [snip]

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 27 2001 - 23:34:04 EDT