A priori knowledge

Originally posted by lemon lime
Even babies know that hunger is "bad", pain is "bad", loneliness is "bad", etc etc. And you can know this because of how they respond. An innate understanding of good and evil doesn't necessary mean strictly defining innate as being a direct knowledge of God.

Yes, but your position seems to differ from RJ's. Earlier you seemed to indicate that we did have an innate knowledge of God, although just enough to know one existed, not enough to draw any conclusions from. Or is that not your position?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree that is the truth you cannot work your way into heaven, and you
still are missing the point if that is all you see.

Please understand Kellyjay that I view things from an atheistic point of view.When I see children suffering , belief in a god being needed to validate good deeds the harm caused by religious conflict, i think our only hope is to rely on each other to over come our problems and not rely on some supernatural being. I know this will be a turbulent path, but can you honestly say that religion has served us any better?

Originally posted by OdBod
Please understand Kellyjay that I view things from an atheistic point of view.When I see children suffering , belief in a god being needed to validate good deeds the harm caused by religious conflict, i think our only hope is to rely on each other to over come our problems and not rely on some supernatural being. I know this will be a turbulent path, but can you honestly say that religion has served us any better?

I had a child die and suffered before she did, I get suffering children that,
and it does not stop anything I've been telling you from being true.

This life isn't it! There is more to this life than living and dying as the song
goes. We live in a world filled with sinners and we are part of the problem.

God is better than this world, and His love and caring for us is stronger than
any pain and suffering we can go through here, and we will go through
some very bad sufferings. He did not promise to take us out of the this
world of pain and suffering, but He did promise to never leave us for forsake
us, He can take us through the worse this world can do to us, and see us
through.

You should know I reject religion if that is all we got too. The very best
thing in this life is God, He is the real thing in the here and now, the Lord
God Almighty, Creator of the Universe, is our mighty shield and our very
great reward. Settling for anything less is doing just that, settling for less.

If God were make believe I'd agree with you, but He isn't.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I had a child die and suffered before she did, I get suffering children that,
and it does not stop anything I've been telling you from being true.

This life isn't it! There is more to this life than living and dying as the song
goes. We live in a world filled with sinners and we are part of the problem.

God is better than this world, and His love a ...[text shortened]... oing just that, settling for less.

If God were make believe I'd agree with you, but He isn't.

You have obviously given up on the ability of humanity to save itself, I have not.

Originally posted by OdBod
You have obviously given up on the ability of humanity to save itself, I have not.

Save it self?
Seriously, you deny God what exactly does humanity need to save itself
from? If there is no God than what we are going through, how we are acting
is us at our natural best at this time.

You think this is as it should be? You think humanity can be better?
What is better? You think we should act like something other than what we
are doing right now?

Do you complain about lions when they kill zebras or do you think that is
just how a lion is naturally? If you think humans should be held to a
different standard than how they currently act, why would you do that?
You know as well as I do that water does not rise above it source. If we are
it, than we are it, if God is real than how we are supposed to live is quiet
different than we are now.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes, but your position seems to differ from RJ's. Earlier you seemed to indicate that we did have an innate knowledge of God, although just enough to know one existed, not enough to draw any conclusions from. Or is that not your position?

Not really, and I'm sure RJ (and KellyJay as well) would be able to quote the same Bible passages I would to illustrate this idea. I'm obviously not saying a baby is thinking about his relationship with God, or understanding it in the same way an adult would. And in many ways a baby has a better understanding than most adults, because that understanding hasn't yet been polluted, mixed in with or altogether replaced by other forms of learned knowledge.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by an innate knowledge earlier, but there is no easy way of explaining this. I had anticipated your reply and so had plenty of time to think about it, but I think my answers would only add to the confusion. I'll just say for now it's not reasonable to assume a new born would be able to express an innate knowledge (understanding) of God directly translatable into adult-speak... all you would likely hear are sounds like goo goo da da wa wa, perhaps followed by the familiar pffft gurgel burp fart chuckle and bwaaaaa!

The only other thought that might prove useful to express here is that problems in translation between English and English can just as easily exist as from one language to another.

Edit: Perhaps another way of explaining an innate understanding is that it is the simplest and most basic foundational kind of understanding... it is the seed (if you will) from which a more complete and mature understanding of God can grow.

Originally posted by DeepThought
So your position is that there is no innate knowledge of God, but even in the absence of Scripture we could deduce the existence of a creator from the fact of creation? You do not think that this is sufficient as we would not be able to deduce much about the nature of God or what a creator wanted from us and that this is what revealed wisdom in the form of the Bible is for. Does this fairly represent your position?

By innate, I suppose you mean inbred and inherited abilities that God seems to give animals that they know to do something without any obvious learning after birth. No I am not saying that babies are born completely without innate abilities since they obviously know to suck and cry, but I believe we have to learn more than many animals and have the capability to learn more. I can't say there is or is not any knowledge of God before birth, but I doubt it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Save it self?
Seriously, you deny God what exactly does humanity need to save itself
from? If there is no God than what we are going through, how we are acting
is us at our natural best at this time.

You think this is as it should be? You think humanity can be better?
What is better? You think we should act like something other than what we
are doin ...[text shortened]... we are it, if God is real than how we are supposed to live is quiet
different than we are now.

Humanity needs to save itself as a species from natural disasters , limited resources limited Sun life etc. Humans are part of the animal kingdom and behave accordingly. It is societal structure that keeps our more basic instincts in check. Relying on religion to manage society has proven to be a disaster in the past and present. Our creative potential will never be realised unless we fully understand that our future rests in our own hands and not some invented gods our ancestors dreamt up to explain things they did not understand.

Originally posted by OdBod
Humanity needs to save itself as a species from natural disasters , limited resources limited Sun life etc. Humans are part of the animal kingdom and behave accordingly. It is societal structure that keeps our more basic instincts in check. Relying on religion to manage society has proven to be a disaster in the past and present. Our creative potential will ne ...[text shortened]... ds and not some invented gods our ancestors dreamt up to explain things they did not understand.

I believe all religions contrary to true Christianity have proven a disaster. It is through true Christian principles and practices that the world has advanced by gaining true knowledge. Denying the Creator is not going to advance creation, but only tear it down. Science knowledge must be based on truth not lies.

Originally posted by OdBod
Humanity needs to save itself as a species from natural disasters , limited resources limited Sun life etc. Humans are part of the animal kingdom and behave accordingly. It is societal structure that keeps our more basic instincts in check. Relying on religion to manage society has proven to be a disaster in the past and present. Our creative potential will ne ...[text shortened]... ds and not some invented gods our ancestors dreamt up to explain things they did not understand.

Save ourselves from natural disasters, what do natural disasters have to do
with what we were talking about? You think our societal structures are
keeping our basic instincts in check, and if they are our natural instincts,
wouldn't the natural thing to do would be follow them?

I stand with you, lets do away with made up gods! My life wasn't turned
around and maintained through some very hard and good times by a made
up god.

Our future does rest in our own hands, we are given a choice, what we do
with it matters.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Not really, and I'm sure RJ (and KellyJay as well) would be able to quote the same Bible passages I would to illustrate this idea. I'm obviously not saying a baby is thinking about his relationship with God, or understanding it in the same way an adult would. And in many ways a baby has a better understanding than most adults, because that understa ...[text shortened]... t is the seed (if you will) from which a more complete and mature understanding of God can grow.

You don't seem very clear about what you mean. RJ has given a clear answer. He thinks there is no innate knowledge of propositions or acquaintance knowledge. He does think there is knowledge how, which is clearly the case. He thinks that the existence of a Creator is deducible from the existence of creation but that we need scripture to understand anything more than that.

You seem to be saying that we do have innate knowledge but you can't explain what it is. Do you have a position like the sensus divinorum of Calvin?

Originally posted by DeepThought
You don't seem very clear about what you mean. RJ has given a clear answer. He thinks there is no innate knowledge of propositions or acquaintance knowledge. He does think there is knowledge how, which is clearly the case. He thinks that the existence of a Creator is deducible from the existence of creation but that we need scripture to understand an ...[text shortened]... ou can't explain what it is. Do you have a position like the sensus divinorum of Calvin?

I believe we have to have some innate knowledge, in order to know what is
scary and good we need a baseline. We need something to build upon too
in my opinion.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You don't seem very clear about what you mean. RJ has given a clear answer. He thinks there is no innate knowledge of propositions or acquaintance knowledge. He does think there is knowledge how, which is clearly the case. He thinks that the existence of a Creator is deducible from the existence of creation but that we need scripture to understand an ...[text shortened]... ou can't explain what it is. Do you have a position like the sensus divinorum of Calvin?

You seem to be saying that we do have innate knowledge but you can't explain what it is.

I believe the basis of misunderstanding here was in my use of the word "knowledge". It occurred to me that using the word 'knowledge' to explain an innate understanding doesn't work. So I switched from using the word 'knowledge' to saying 'understanding'. I don't know if this can clear up any misunderstanding or not, but I believe the word 'understanding' is better suited for getting my meaning across.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]You seem to be saying that we do have innate knowledge but you can't explain what it is.

I believe the basis of misunderstanding here was in my use of the word "knowledge". It occurred to me that using the word 'knowledge' to explain an innate understanding doesn't work. So I switched from using the word 'knowledge' to saying 'understanding'. I ...[text shortened]... g or not, but I believe the word 'understanding' is better suited for getting my meaning across.[/b]

What do you mean by understanding? Knowledge is justified belief that is true. It's possible to know things without understanding them. I don't think it's possible to understand something without knowing it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe we have to have some innate knowledge, in order to know what is
scary and good we need a baseline. We need something to build upon too
in my opinion.

Yes. Innate knowledge in humans would be equivalent to instinct in animals, because instinct can be defined as a form of inborn knowledge. Inborn knowledge is not the same as learned knowledge. Humans have a greater capacity for learned knowledge, but this doesn't mean knowledge must necessarily be defined as 'learned'.

Whew...translating English into English can sometimes be more difficult than translation of different languages.