Seventeenth century French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) believed that it was impossible to discern the existence of God through reason or observation. He concluded that either God exists or He doesn't, but either way man is forced to play a game of chance. We must, in effect, bet one way or the other. If we bet on God's existence and it turns out that He does exist we gain an eternity of happiness. But if God does not exist, we lose nothing. But if we bet that God does not exist and we are wrong, we've lost our chance at eternal bliss. But if we're right, and there is no God, then we gain nothing. He concluded that it was more advantageous to believe in God. This argument became known as "Pascal's Wager."

Part of Pascal's reasoning has some merit. Man has this life only to choose between belief or unbelief, faithfulness or unfaithfulness, obedience or disobedience. Belief has every advantage, and unbelief carries with it the threat of eternal torment. His basic reasoning on this point is correct. However, Pascal's premise was wrong. His belief in God was not based on evidence, but on which path was "safer." 'His "belief' was nothing more than religious agnosticism. Given his premise, it's not very surprising that Pascal turned to mysticism to find God.

The truth is that it is possible to discern the existence of God through observation. No, we can't prove His existence scientifically. There is no instrument that will allow us to detect God, but we can see the effects of His existence in nature. This is known as natural revelation.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Rom.1:20)

Now, there's not much we can learn about God through natural revelation. We can discern His existence through the design in the universe (Ps. 19:1-4). Design implies a Designer. And, we can learn something of His great power. Consider the size of the known universe. Astronomers measure distances in "light years," that are the distance light travels in one year. Light travels at a speed of 186,282 miles per second, and there are about 31.5 million seconds in a year. If you do the math, that come out to about 6 trillion miles. Our galaxy is said to be about 100,000 light years across, and the known universe is currently measured at 12 billion light years. These are distances so great the human mind can not truly comprehend them. But what does this say about the Power who can create it.

If the universe is really that size, should we believe that the universe is 12 billion years old? No! When God created the universe, He created it with an "apparent age." This is most easily demonstrated with the creation of man. If a medical doctor could have examined Adam one day after he was created, he might conclude that Adam was 20-25 years old. In reality, Adam would be 1 day old. His "apparent age" was much older than his "actual age." God created the universe with an "apparent age" much older than it's "actual age."

But evolutionists believe that it's all an accident of nature. They teach that our bodies, in all of their complexity, are the result of natural forces, and that we are the outcome of a 12 billion year old explosion. But this is contrary to what is observable. When a furniture maker decides to make a chair, he doesn't go into a forest throwing hand grenades at the trees, and hoping that the wood will splinter and then come together again to produce a chair. Rather, he has a design, the raw materials, and the tools and skills needed to make a chair. If a simple chair implies a furniture maker, then how much more does a complex organism imply an Organizer (not an accident).

The simplest single-celled organism is so complex that man is incapable of making one. Scientists cannot take dead matter and turn it into life. They've been trying for decades but have failed at every turn. (Cloning doesn't count. Cloning is the manipulation of living tissue, not the creation of it.) The human body is incomprehensibly more complex than a simple life form. The faith required to believe in evolution is indeed blind.

But suppose that someday scientists will be able to create a simple life form out of dead matter. Would that prove evolution? No, quite the opposite. It would prove that it takes intelligence, intent, and design to create life.