Blaise Pascal [/b]was a remarkable scholar of mid-17th century France. Home-schooled by his father (his mother having died when he was three), he showed astounding intellectual skills as a youth. By the time he was twelve, he had figured out the equivalent of many of Euclid’s geometrical theories. At nineteen, he invented the first workable calculator. He formulated the “theory of probability.” In physics he set forth the concept that a fluid in a closed system exerts pressure equally in all directions. This is known as “Pascal’s Law.”

Eventually,[b] Pascal’s interests in scientific matters waned, and he gravitated more towards religion. He commenced a serious study of the Scriptures and became convinced of the divine inspiration of these documents. When he was about thirty-five, Pascal [/b]began to prepare An Apology [Defense] for the Christian Religion. He died (at thirty-nine), however, before it was completed—leaving only a collection of notes. These were published after his death under the title, Pensees (“Thoughts”).

In these reflections, Pascal contemplated such matters as the misery of man without God, justice, morality, Bible prophecy, miracles, evidences for the integrity of Jesus Christ, etc. He argued that it is a safer proposition (a better “bet”) to believe in God and have the possibility of a blissful eternity, than to accept the premise of atheism—that there is nothing in eternity—and risk losing all. In its more elaborate format, this is known as [b]“Pascal’s Wager.” Atheists have attempted to formulate a similar “wager,” though without any remnant of success.

Though Pascal [/b]did not exclude “reason” from arriving at faith in God, he did disdain the attempt “to prove Divinity from the works of nature,” suggesting that such was a very “weak” approach to theistic apologetics. The young man went so far as to claim: “It is an astounding fact that no canonical writer has ever made use of nature to prove God” (1941, 243). [b]Voltaire, a French deist, was shocked at this claim. He wondered why, if “the heavens declare the glory of God,” anyone would “downplay the external evidence for God in nature” (Geisler 1999, 585). That is a legitimate question.

The fact is, it is not the case that the canonical writers refrained from arguing the case for God’s existence from the works of nature. One example will suffice for the present.

Romans 1
Near the commencement of his letter to the Christians in the city of Rome, Paul [/b]indicts the ancient Graeco-Roman world for its intellectual rejection of the world’s Creator. The apostle declared these rebels: (a) did not glorify God; (b) refused to give him thanks; © were vain in their reasoning ability; (d) had senseless hearts that were darkened; (e) were fools; and (f) corrupted the glory of God by their idol worship of the material creation (Romans 1:21-23).

As a consequence of this haughty and wicked disposition, they were “without excuse” (v. 20), and so God “gave them up” (vv. 24,26,28). Their disobedience was willful; they “refused to have God in their knowledge” (v. 28), and they were destined for “death,” i.e., the punishment of hell (cf. Revelation 2:11; 20:14).


[b]The Rationale for the Indictment

The basis for Paul’s charge is that though these pagans had no formal written revelation from God (as the Jews did; cf. 2:12-16), they had sufficient revelation to “know” something of God that should have prevented their heathenish idolatry and the moral abandonment that characterized their lives. Here is his proposition:

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity (1:20).

Let us give consideration to the constituent elements of this magnificent statement. There are four major areas of emphasis.

[b](1) [/b]There are qualities of God that are designated as “invisible.” This is consistent with biblical information elsewhere that affirms God himself is “invisible” (Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17; Hebrews 11:27). One of Job’s frustrations, in making his defense of innocence, was that he could not confront God personally; he could not “perceive” or “see” him (Job 23:8-9). The fact is, no man has seen the “spirit essence” of the Almighty at any time (John 1:18).

The “invisible things” (aoratos) are the “attributes” unique to deity, e.g., his omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful) qualities. As the apostle later exclaims: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out” (Romans 11:33).

[b](2) [/b]While these divine attributes are not directly perceptible, nonetheless through the process of solid logic, they may be deduced. The paradox “invisible” and “clearly seen” is for the sake of emphasis. The term kathorao (“clearly seen”) is an intensive term that asserts God’s invisible attributes are “perceived with the eye of reason” by an examination of the components of the created universe (Danker et al. 2000, 493). “Perceived” (noeo) carries the idea of grasping or comprehending something on the basis of careful thought (Ibid., 674). The evidence, to the extent it is designed to take us, is so vivid that the one who refuses to draw correct conclusions stands “without excuse” before his Maker.

[b](3) [/b]The testimony of the intricately designed universe has been a revealing library of information available for human observation and analysis for millennia. In fact, “since the creation of the world.” The Greek preposition apo (“since”) indicates “the point from which something begins” (Ibid., 105). “Creation” (ktisis, derived from ktizo) signifies to “bring something into existence”—from nothing to something (Ibid., 572). The kosmos is “the universe,” the “sum” of all that has been created (Bromiley 1985, 462). Both expressions, “are clearly seen” and “perceived,” are present tense forms, thus indicating “the continued manifestation of the being and perfections of God, by the works of creation from the beginning” (McKnight 1960, 58).

As Professor Everett Harrison observed, there has been a “constant testimony” to humanity ever since the beginning of the creation (1976, 23). God has borne “witness” of himself in the benevolence of his creation (Acts 14:17). Incidentally, the text clearly testifies to the fact that humanity is co-existent with the commencement of the material universe—quite to the contrary of evolutionary chronological assertion that man is but a Johnny-come-lately compared to the age of the universe (see Jackson 2003).

(4) The created universe bears witness to Jehovah’s “eternal power and divine nature” (ESV). Paul’s argument actually is this: The material universe is not self-existent. It hasn’t the nature to design and create itself; it must have been brought into existence by something of the “supernatural” order, i.e., “divine nature.” Since it is orderly, it cannot have resulted from the chaotic. It is finite; it must have resulted from the infinite. It is characterized by dissipating energy; it must have been generated by an “everlasting power.” With a simple phrase, the apostle has constructed a basic argument with breathtaking implications.

Cottrell forcefully notes that Paul appears to be arguing a basic form of what is called the cosmological argument for the existence of God . . . .The created universe consists only of contingent things, i.e., things that have a beginning and are perishable. From their existence we infer that their cause must be a Creator who is not contingent, and who is therefore eternal and imperishable (1996, 140).

A Conclusion

From certain known facts relative to the universe, one may reason in an a posteriori fashion, i.e., from known effects to an unknown cause. If the universe is an effect, it must have had a cause. If matter is unable to create itself, it must have had an origin generated by an eternal creative force. If the universe evidences intelligent design, it must have had an intelligent designer. If the universe is characterized by a sense of morality, its source must possess a moral quality, etc.

The force of this argument, of course, is limited by nature of the data with which one has to work. One scholar has judiciously commented that this type of argument is a limited testimony in that it reflects God in certain aspects only—namely, “his eternal power and divine nature.” One has to look elsewhere for the disclosure of his love and grace—i.e., to Scripture and especially to the revelation of God in his Son (John 1:14). Natural revelation is sufficient to make man responsible, but is not by itself sufficient to accomplish his salvation (Harrison 1976, 23).

Thus, as much as we may otherwise admire inventive genius and logical skill of the celebrated Pascal, he did “miss the target” when he alleged that the canonical writers never argued for the existence of God on the basis of the natural wonders of the universe.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1370-pascal-and-paul

Frosbel,

What are trying to prove; ol'boy you no dey tire to copy and paste everything you see for internet? Where is LagosShia when you need him 

Always adding bible verses to prove obsolete ideas.

^^^

My Brother, I tire for me ooo 

I love doing online research and study , especially into the history of religion and ancient cultures. It's a hobby I am obsessed with , I guess.

Although I know that you didn't write the above, @OP,  and that you probably aren't even interested in whatever discussion might ensue from it, but rather this is another shot at your continued campaign of terrorising the religion section with dead threads, however I've taken up interest in this matter.

There are holes all over the piece, but let me stick to the ones that will provide the most entertainment.

The fact is, no man has seen the “spirit essence” of the Almighty at any time (John 1:18).

You shouldn't let the moslems read this.  Let me pre=empt them before they come to maul you.  this is what John 1, 18 actually says.  

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

KJV

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

NIV

This verse itself is very troublesome, so before I go into the fact that the article above is sly and deceptive, and misleading, let me first clear up some translation issues.

μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν είς τὸν κόλπον
Monogenes Theos o en eis ton Kolpon

Monogenes means only begotten
Theos means God
O en eis ton kolpon means who in his breast.  

So what does monogenes theos o en eis ton kolpon mean.  The only begotten son OF God who is in the father's breast. (kjv adds son here, but then it is save to assume that if you beget a boy, then that boy is your 'son'.  So though the word 'son' is not in the text we will allow it.

OR,  The only begotten God who is in the breast of the father.  

So should we interpret the Theos as 'of God' or just 'God'.  By sticking with just God the NIV miss out the fact that he is uniquely begotten, and place the uniqueness in more general terms.  He is simply God, the unique (one and only) rather than God the uniquely begotten.  

Okay, now, back to my main bone of contention:

The fact is, no man has seen the “spirit essence” of the Almighty at any time (John 1:18).

Where, for Truth's sake, are we to find 'spirit essence' in all of that passage?  Is this not twisting what the passage says.  Even as openly interpretable as that verse is, these commentators are going too far.  If they haven't seen the spirit essence of God then please o, what essence of God have they seen.  Is there another 'essence' of God that is visible?  Let me leave that one there for now.

Paul’s argument actually is this: The material universe is not self-existent. It hasn’t the nature to design and create itself; it must have been brought into existence by something of the “supernatural” order, i.e., “divine nature.” Since it is orderly, it cannot have resulted from the chaotic. It is finite; it must have resulted from the infinite. It is characterized by dissipating energy; it must have been generated by an “everlasting power.” With a simple phrase, the apostle has constructed a basic argument with breathtaking implications.

Please, where exactly did Paul argue these things?  If the writer of this rubbish has some insights that he would like to share from his own intellectual musings then why doesn't he just say, 'hey guys, I've got an idea and it goes like . . . '.  Why does he have to tell us that it is what Paul was saying when in fact Paul says no such thing?  

Not only did Paul not say those things but the entire argument is such a load of utter yamayama.  'If something is finite it must have resulted from the infinite'.  Really?  'If something is orderly then it most have resulted from the chaotic'.  Then where did the Chaotic come from?  How about, 'if something is chaotic then it must have come from the orderly'?  With a simple phrase the writer has constructed a basic argument of breathtaking inanity.

it is a dead thread and yet you could not resist the temptation to make a point ?

for your info this is a religious section , therefore any article that is religiously biased is valid , irrespective of it's content.


if it's causing you grief,  ignore and go to posts that interest you.

thanks

.

frosbel:

^^^

My Brother, I tire for me ooo 

I love doing online research and study , especially into the history of religion and ancient cultures. It's a hobby I am obsessed with , I guess.

Check out this video on Zoroastrianism.  This is the religion of the Ancient Persians.  Remember that the Jews were eventually freed from Babylon after captivity, and the Persian let them rebuild Jerusalem.  King Cyrus of Persia was called the Messiach (messiah) in the bible.  

(44.23)  Sing, O heavens, for the Lord has done it! Shout, you lower parts of the earth; break forth into singing, you mountains, o forest, and every tree in it! For the Lord has redeemed Jacob, and glorified Himself in Israel. (44.24)  Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb:

   'I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself; (44.25)  Who frustrates the signs of the babblers, and drives diviners mad, who turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolishness, (44.26)  Who confirms the word of His servant, and performs the counsel of His messengers, Who says to Jerusalem, "You shall be inhabited," to the cities of Judah, "You shall be built," and will raise up her waste places, (44.27) Who says to the deep, "Be dry!" and will dry up your rivers, (44.28)  Who says of Cyrus, "He is My shepherd, And he shall perform all My pleasure, saying to Jerusalem, 'You shall be built,' and to the temple, 'Your foundation shall be laid.'"'

(45.1) Thus says the Lord to His anointed [i.e., Messiah], to Cyrus -whose right hand I have held- to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings, to open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut:

Bear in mind that the Persian Emperors were called King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  Bear in mind that Zoroastrianism  were  monotheistic.  A concept the moslems call Tawhid and is at the very heart of Islam and Judaism.

Bear in mind that history was seen by the zoroastrians as an epic battle between Good vs. Evil which will culminate one day in a great judgement where the good will go to heaven and the bad will go to a place of torment.  

Bear in mind that the Persians had a rich angelology and demonology.  And they also believed in the coming in the last days of a person called Saoshyant that is remarkably like the expected Jewish Messiah.  

And that these concepts were not found in Israelite religion until after the Babylonian exile.  

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGRgzFLcMMQ&feature=related[/flash]

frosbel:

it is a dead thread and yet you could not resist the temptation to make a point ?

It will not die. Amen! Because I am giving it life.