Many of your typical "village Christians" will argue for their God's existence by pointing to the world and saying something like: "Just look at it--there must be a God because I see his work in it." One of the first Christians who argued for God that way was Paul of Tarsus who wrote in Romans 1:20:
Now, like any exposure to an argument for God, we have been presented with a lot of words, yet we have not been presented with God. So what's wrong with this picture? Paul's logical error is his concluding that since he perceives God's handiwork, then he must be seeing actual handiwork that originated with God. Obviously, others don't perceive that supposed handiwork. So how is Paul's perception any more accurate than the perceptions of those who don't see what he sees? Paul doesn't say, and there is no good reason I know of to conclude that Paul actually sees what others miss. In fact, based on Paul's story in Acts and his epistles, he may well have suffered from paranoid delusions and visual and auditory hallucinations. As a result, we have good reason to doubt that what Paul saw existed anywhere aside from his deluded thinking.
One must wonder how invisible things can be seen. Be that as it may, Paul is telling us that since he perceives God's works in nature, then there are God's works in nature. God's works require God, so God exists. Of course, if Paul does in fact see God's works, then he's right: God does and must exist.Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse..
Now, like any exposure to an argument for God, we have been presented with a lot of words, yet we have not been presented with God. So what's wrong with this picture? Paul's logical error is his concluding that since he perceives God's handiwork, then he must be seeing actual handiwork that originated with God. Obviously, others don't perceive that supposed handiwork. So how is Paul's perception any more accurate than the perceptions of those who don't see what he sees? Paul doesn't say, and there is no good reason I know of to conclude that Paul actually sees what others miss. In fact, based on Paul's story in Acts and his epistles, he may well have suffered from paranoid delusions and visual and auditory hallucinations. As a result, we have good reason to doubt that what Paul saw existed anywhere aside from his deluded thinking.