Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Non Biblical Arguments For The Christian God

Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 3:43:15 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 2:52:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do they exist?
The fact that you have to ask this question gives me quite a bit of information about you. Read some literature dealing with natural theology. Some misguided people deny the scriptural basis for natural theology. However, it was the apostle Paul that gave the most clear Biblical basis for it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:18-21)

Your question reveals that what Paul said applies to you. Read Romans 1:28. God bless.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:06:29 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 2:52:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do they exist?

If one looked at it like i do, and defined all of this (religion) as metaphor, allegories, etc. there may be arguments about a higher power. I can use every religion to help formulate an argument for the existence of "something" transcendent to us or our reality. I can look at the past writers as "spiritually" gifted, a talent of thinking outside the box metaphysically... setting up puzzle pieces. I, however, think we still need to play with the puzzle pieces bc they are still scattered. But, i can come up with convincing arguments that keep the "spiritual" label in conjunction with my agnostic atheist side. However, my atheist side says that no religion written by humans, at this point, is the ultimate truth. So, if Christians are saying their God is the ultimate truth, then, to answer your OP, no... i think their arguments are weak and unable to empathize with the idea of the very god they are trying to protect... furthermore, they don't see how they protect the corrupt along their way.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 6:41:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 2:52:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do they exist?

Not that I'm aware of. Most arguments I've seen argue for a deistic god at best, and then a non sequitor leap is made to an interventionist god.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 9:25:40 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 3:43:15 AM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 2:52:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do they exist?
The fact that you have to ask this question gives me quite a bit of information about you. Read some literature dealing with natural theology. Some misguided people deny the scriptural basis for natural theology. However, it was the apostle Paul that gave the most clear Biblical basis for it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:18-21)

Your question reveals that what Paul said applies to you. Read Romans 1:28. God bless.

And the passages quoted in your answer certainly reveal why the topic was raised in the first place. That is, the bible is so full of metaphorical, exaggerated codswallop it is no wonder that anyone with more than a modicum of commonsense and intelligence is not going to find one rational argument for the (verification of) the Christian God in it.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 9:30:50 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 3:43:15 AM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 2:52:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do they exist?
The fact that you have to ask this question gives me quite a bit of information about you. Read some literature dealing with natural theology. Some misguided people deny the scriptural basis for natural theology. However, it was the apostle Paul that gave the most clear Biblical basis for it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:18-21)

Your question reveals that what Paul said applies to you. Read Romans 1:28. God bless.

So when asked to supply non-Biblical arguments for the existence of the Christian God, you decide to quote the Bible?

Calvinism is great, like mayo out of the jar.
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:04:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 9:30:50 AM, Omniverse wrote:

So when asked to supply non-Biblical arguments for the existence of the Christian God, you decide to quote the Bible?
No. I suggested that he/she should read literature on natural theology. I then proceeded to give the Biblical basis for natural theology, as some people try and deny it. Try not to filter my responses. Instead, read them as they are.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:07:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 9:25:40 AM, Willows wrote:

And the passages quoted in your answer certainly reveal why the topic was raised in the first place. That is, the bible is so full of metaphorical, exaggerated codswallop it is no wonder that anyone with more than a modicum of commonsense and intelligence is not going to find one rational argument for the (verification of) the Christian God in it.
That can be debated. I would suggest taking a listen to the following lecture by Michael Kruger on the topic of self-authenticating scripture:
http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org...
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:14:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:04:59 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 9:30:50 AM, Omniverse wrote:

So when asked to supply non-Biblical arguments for the existence of the Christian God, you decide to quote the Bible?
No. I suggested that he/she should read literature on natural theology. I then proceeded to give the Biblical basis for natural theology, as some people try and deny it. Try not to filter my responses. Instead, read them as they are.

I think the OP is asking for an argument that isn't rooted in the Bible at all, no matter the degrees of separation you insert.
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:16:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:14:53 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

I think the OP is asking for an argument that isn't rooted in the Bible at all, no matter the degrees of separation you insert.
That is why I recommended natural theology. It is through natural theology that someone can gain an understanding that there is a God or higher power. They cannot know much about that God without the Bible, however. For example, nature will not tell you about God's plan for salvation.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:20:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:04:59 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 9:30:50 AM, Omniverse wrote:

So when asked to supply non-Biblical arguments for the existence of the Christian God, you decide to quote the Bible?
No. I suggested that he/she should read literature on natural theology. I then proceeded to give the Biblical basis for natural theology, as some people try and deny it. Try not to filter my responses. Instead, read them as they are.

I did and noticed you passed on the opportunity to meet the OP's explicit request, in favour of - surprise! - quoting the Bible.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:24:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:16:58 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:14:53 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

I think the OP is asking for an argument that isn't rooted in the Bible at all, no matter the degrees of separation you insert.
That is why I recommended natural theology

Which you based on the Bible and therefore is outside the scope of what the OP is asking for.

It is through natural theology that someone can gain an understanding that there is a God or higher power. They cannot know much about that God without the Bible, however. For example, nature will not tell you about God's plan for salvation.
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:27:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:20:49 PM, Omniverse wrote:

I did and noticed you passed on the opportunity to meet the OP's explicit request, in favour of - surprise! - quoting the Bible.
Once again, do not filter my responses. I know it can be difficult for someone who already denies a very evident truth (Romans 1:28). I recommended him/her to read some literature on natural theology. That was my answer to their question, which dealt with whether or not non-Biblical arguments for the Christian God exist. They did not ask me to give the specific arguments. They did not ask anyone to. Instead, they asked if such arguments existed. I affirm what the Bible very clearly teaches. That is, such arguments do indeed exist. Where can you find them? In literature dealing with natural theology.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:28:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:24:09 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Which you based on the Bible and therefore is outside the scope of what the OP is asking for.
I did not present any natural theology. So how can I base something that I never gave on the Bible? I recommended that they read literature dealing with the topic of natural theology. I then went on to show that it is not un-scriptural to do such a thing.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:43:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:28:41 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:24:09 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Which you based on the Bible and therefore is outside the scope of what the OP is asking for.
I did not present any natural theology. So how can I base something that I never gave on the Bible? I recommended that they read literature dealing with the topic of natural theology. I then went on to show that it is not un-scriptural to do such a thing.

Right. And the OP is explicitly looking for something that is non-scriptual.
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:44:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:43:02 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Right. And the OP is explicitly looking for something that is non-scriptual.
Simply because it is scriptural does not mean that it relies on scripture. It is scriptural to get married, but that does not mean every single marriage is grounded in scripture. Natural theology is scriptural, as in it is permitted, but that does not mean literature dealing with natural theology is grounded in scripture.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:48:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:44:46 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:43:02 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Right. And the OP is explicitly looking for something that is non-scriptual.
Simply because it is scriptural does not mean that it relies on scripture. It is scriptural to get married, but that does not mean every single marriage is grounded in scripture. Natural theology is scriptural, as in it is permitted, but that does not mean literature dealing with natural theology is grounded in scripture.

Except that's not how you started. You said that natural theology has a basis (that is, is based on) in the Bible.
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 4:55:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:48:27 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

Except that's not how you started. You said that natural theology has a basis (that is, is based on) in the Bible.
I stated the following:
"Some misguided people deny the scriptural basis for natural theology. However, it was the apostle Paul that gave the most clear Biblical basis for it:"

By "basis" I meant the second sub-definition that appears on Google. It reads: "the justification for or reasoning behind something." Some Christians argue that natural theology is not justified in scripture. They believe that people who engage in natural theology have no real scriptural reason behind it. I was not saying that natural theology argues from the Bible, as it does not. It argues from nature. Google defines "natural theology" as: "theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation."
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 5:17:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 4:27:00 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 4:20:49 PM, Omniverse wrote:

I did and noticed you passed on the opportunity to meet the OP's explicit request, in favour of - surprise! - quoting the Bible.
Once again, do not filter my responses. I know it can be difficult for someone who already denies a very evident truth (Romans 1:28). I recommended him/her to read some literature on natural theology. That was my answer to their question, which dealt with whether or not non-Biblical arguments for the Christian God exist. They did not ask me to give the specific arguments. They did not ask anyone to. Instead, they asked if such arguments existed. I affirm what the Bible very clearly teaches. That is, such arguments do indeed exist. Where can you find them? In literature dealing with natural theology.

Ah, That Calvinist mayo fresh out of the jar...so delicious.

This is the 5th lengthy paragraph where you pass on the opportunity to meet the OP's explicit request and instead decide to pontificate on the Bible.

Please provide a brief summary of the most salient points advocated by Natural Theology.
Obliged.
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 5:54:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 5:17:17 PM, Omniverse wrote:

This is the 5th lengthy paragraph where you pass on the opportunity to meet the OP's explicit request and instead decide to pontificate on the Bible.
Quote to me what the OP requested. Do not summarize it, quote it. I think you will be thoroughly surprised.

Please provide a brief summary of the most salient points advocated by Natural Theology.
I have not studied natural theology with any great depth, as it has not been terribly important to me. Some of the most well know people who wrote/write on the topic are William Paley, Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, etc. Not all of them agree, obviously. So there is no clear way of telling you which points are the "most salient." You could ask me to give my own personal answer, which would be an opinion (strictly speaking). With that in mind, my opinion would not be as useful as someone's who actually invests reasonable time into the study of natural theology. So, do you want my personal opinion?
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 5:57:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 5:54:32 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 5:17:17 PM, Omniverse wrote:

This is the 5th lengthy paragraph where you pass on the opportunity to meet the OP's explicit request and instead decide to pontificate on the Bible.
Quote to me what the OP requested. Do not summarize it, quote it. I think you will be thoroughly surprised.

Please provide a brief summary of the most salient points advocated by Natural Theology.
I have not studied natural theology with any great depth, as it has not been terribly important to me. Some of the most well know people who wrote/write on the topic are William Paley, Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, etc. Not all of them agree, obviously. So there is no clear way of telling you which points are the "most salient." You could ask me to give my own personal answer, which would be an opinion (strictly speaking). With that in mind, my opinion would not be as useful as someone's who actually invests reasonable time into the study of natural theology. So, do you want my personal opinion?

Looking at those prominent names I can already guess what is coming. But yes, I would like to hear your personal opinion.
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 6:13:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 5:57:37 PM, Omniverse wrote:

Looking at those prominent names I can already guess what is coming. But yes, I would like to hear your personal opinion.
Like I said, I have never devoted much time to the study of natural theology. However, in April of this year Hugh Ross published an article entitled "10 Ways to Thank God on Earth Day." I thought it was rather good. You can click on the orange text to read a full article on the specific topic:
http://www.reasons.org...
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 7:14:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 6:13:52 PM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 5:57:37 PM, Omniverse wrote:

Looking at those prominent names I can already guess what is coming. But yes, I would like to hear your personal opinion.
Like I said, I have never devoted much time to the study of natural theology. However, in April of this year Hugh Ross published an article entitled "10 Ways to Thank God on Earth Day." I thought it was rather good. You can click on the orange text to read a full article on the specific topic:
http://www.reasons.org...

As I thought.
Nothing substantial. A concatenation of un-evidenced assertions.

That waterfall's lovely, though!
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 7:16:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 7:14:12 PM, Omniverse wrote:

That waterfall's lovely, though!
Indeed it is. I do not believe we would have a waterfall to appreciate if it weren't for God. That is where we differ.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2016 7:35:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 3:43:15 AM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 2:52:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do they exist?
The fact that you have to ask this question gives me quite a bit of information about you. Read some literature dealing with natural theology. Some misguided people deny the scriptural basis for natural theology. However, it was the apostle Paul that gave the most clear Biblical basis for it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:18-21)

Your question reveals that what Paul said applies to you. Read Romans 1:28. God bless.

That is the best you can do, which is a terrible argument. You are quoting a bible that simply says that people that don't have evidence might doubt unsubstantiated assertions. Am I supposed to feel guilty about that?

I also read your post on natural theology. In one post, you claim that it is non-biblical evidence of a Christian God. In another post, you admit you don't understand the argument.

I have seen enough of these to know that this thread will go no further than what you were able to not provide.

Here is your chance....convert all of us critical thinkers to Christianity by presenting an argument that is hard to refute. This is where you say that you cant use logic to assess God, Satan has hardened our hearts, etc, etc rather than simply providing a sound argument. Have you ever wondered why you struggle to identify a logical argument? Why you guys cling on to these lame arguments is beyond me.
Calvinist
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 12:24:18 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 7:35:56 PM, matt8800 wrote:

That is the best you can do, which is a terrible argument. You are quoting a bible that simply says that people that don't have evidence might doubt unsubstantiated assertions. Am I supposed to feel guilty about that?
I was not making an argument. Therefore, this fictitious argument cannot be "terrible."

I also read your post on natural theology. In one post, you claim that it is non-biblical evidence of a Christian God. In another post, you admit you don't understand the argument.
Natural theology does not use the Bible to argue for God. So, yes, it is non-Biblical evidence of God. I understand what natural theology is. I personally do not devote a lot of time to reading literature handling the subject. I have no interest in it, but some people do.

I have seen enough of these to know that this thread will go no further than what you were able to not provide.
All I did was provide a suggestion. Why would I go any further?

Here is your chance....convert all of us critical thinkers to Christianity by presenting an argument that is hard to refute. This is where you say that you cant use logic to assess God, Satan has hardened our hearts, etc, etc rather than simply providing a sound argument. Have you ever wondered why you struggle to identify a logical argument? Why you guys cling on to these lame arguments is beyond me.
I cannot convert anyone. I am not a natural theologian, which is probably what you want. I can teach you about the Bible and provide you with the Gospel. It is up to God to provide you with a heart of flesh.
Sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, soli Deo gloria.
Les_Rong
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 12:27:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/6/2016 3:43:15 AM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 2:52:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do they exist?
The fact that you have to ask this question gives me quite a bit of information about you. Read some literature dealing with natural theology. Some misguided people deny the scriptural basis for natural theology. However, it was the apostle Paul that gave the most clear Biblical basis for it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:18-21)

Your question reveals that what Paul said applies to you. Read Romans 1:28. God bless.

So what you're saying is that there is a Biblical argument for a non-Biblical argument? Do you see any problem with that? Does anything jump out at you?
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 1:06:38 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 12:27:26 AM, Les_Rong wrote:
At 7/6/2016 3:43:15 AM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 2:52:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do they exist?
The fact that you have to ask this question gives me quite a bit of information about you. Read some literature dealing with natural theology. Some misguided people deny the scriptural basis for natural theology. However, it was the apostle Paul that gave the most clear Biblical basis for it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:18-21)

Your question reveals that what Paul said applies to you. Read Romans 1:28. God bless.

So what you're saying is that there is a Biblical argument for a non-Biblical argument? Do you see any problem with that? Does anything jump out at you?

I thought atheism was a "lack of belief". Looks like a militant religion...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Les_Rong
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 1:19:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 1:06:38 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/10/2016 12:27:26 AM, Les_Rong wrote:
At 7/6/2016 3:43:15 AM, Calvinist wrote:
At 7/6/2016 2:52:06 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do they exist?
The fact that you have to ask this question gives me quite a bit of information about you. Read some literature dealing with natural theology. Some misguided people deny the scriptural basis for natural theology. However, it was the apostle Paul that gave the most clear Biblical basis for it:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:18-21)

Your question reveals that what Paul said applies to you. Read Romans 1:28. God bless.

So what you're saying is that there is a Biblical argument for a non-Biblical argument? Do you see any problem with that? Does anything jump out at you?

I thought atheism was a "lack of belief". Looks like a militant religion...

I can see no relationship between your response and my post.