1) Are Proofs of God's Existence Compatible with Christianity? · 2) Parallel Answer to CMI
Not so, seems Pascal to say:
It is a remarkable fact that no canonical writer has ever used Nature to prove God.
From Pascal, Pensées, IV, 243. As cited by CSL in his preface to The Problem of Pain.
Well, duh, as it happens, one canonical writer has:
Romans 1:  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:  Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.  For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
If nature does not prove God, the "things that are made" don't prove Him and Pagans are excused.
So, St Paul was in fact proving God's existence from what he called the "things that are made" and we "nature". Both external and human. Both are made. And both would still in Pascal's time (I think) have been considered admissible content for the concept "nature".
Hans Georg Lundahl
Day after St Matthew