A priori knowledge

Originally posted by OdBod
If I help others, behave well to my fellow man, do all the things a good christian might do, yet not believe in god or subscribe to any religion would I still be welcomed by it/him/she (assuming my Atheistic view point might be wrong) ?

Listen you can behave well to your fellow man, do all the good things
a Christian might do, and call yourself a Christian, and go to Hell. It is not
about your good works, no amount of good works is going to be enough,
it is not just believing in God, it is actually answering the call of God and
having God actually enter into your life! In the end the words you do not
want to hear from Jesus is depart from me I never knew you. All of us
are sinners, every single one of us me included, so our righteousness is
already so bad it isn't funny before God.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Listen you can behave well to your fellow man, do all the good things
a Christian might do, and call yourself a Christian, and go to Hell. It is not
about your good works, no amount of good works is going to be enough,
it is not just believing in God, it is actually answering the call of God and
having God actually enter into your life! In the end the w ...[text shortened]... single one of us me included, so our righteousness is
already so bad it isn't funny before God.

"No amount of good works is going to be enough" ? I'm happy to be an Atheist.

Originally posted by josephw
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

[b]"So it is not clear from the text alone whether Paul is referring to innate knowledge or knowledge based on evidence."

Not innate. "The in ...[text shortened]... reserved it as well. Which is not to say it isn't tampered with. It is. Even from the beginning.[/b]

So the passage in the Epistle to the Romans regards the existence of God as being deducible from the existence of the universe. In which case there is not a biblical claim of innate knowledge of the existence of God, at least in Romans 1. The overall inference starts to fail in the presence of alternative explanations for the existence of the universe.

I read Wisdom last night. It does not mention innate knowledge. Although I can see why it is associated with The Epistle to the Romans, they are thematically linked. The protagonist, presumably Solomon, prays and God sends him wisdom. There's a lot about the Godless persecuting the Godly and that Godlessness leads to immorality, a section of which could be read as foreshadowing the crucifixion. It finishes with a diatribe against idolatry towards the end, which blames all the evils of the world on worshipping idols.

It has secondary canonical status within Catholicism. The apocrypha are explicitly not rejected by the Church of England. It's easiest to quote Article 6:

Article VI

Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

In the name of Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the names and number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The First Book of Esdras, The Second Book of Esdras, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the Greater, Twelve Prophets the Less.

All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them canonical.

And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The Second Book of Maccabees.

Copy and Paste from:
http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art1.html
Note: That site carries irritatingly intrusive advertising.

So the Anglican position is that the main canon is sufficient, with the Apocrypha forming an optional extra list that specifically are barred from altering doctrine, but are not rejected as false. So I don't think what appears to me as your position of rejection is universal among Christians.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]The key is this: THEY CAN"T ALL BE RIGHT.

True.

And the opposite can be said, THEY CAN ALL BE WRONG.

True.

But not just wrong. DECIEVED, DUPED, TAKEN IN, however you want to tag it.

But you could also be deceived, duped, taken in, or however you want to tag it by assuming none of them can be right. Judging everything in ...[text shortened]... dless process that could automatically lead you to God... free will is necessarily a part of it.[/b]

... but same the principle applies.

evolving am I into Yoda?

http://s.likes-media.com/img/a933f718c6b7484a7cb9f70d5162bbbc.600x.jpg

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]... but same the principle applies.

evolving am I into Yoda?

http://s.likes-media.com/img/a933f718c6b7484a7cb9f70d5162bbbc.600x.jpg[/b]

If a god sticks its hypothetical finger down to me and goes "Donald, this is how it is'.......

Fine. Another human telling me.....

Originally posted by LemonJello

It's either by rationalization or empiricism that we learn. But there is another way.

You mean rationalism, not rationalization. Please take a look at the following survey article.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

As discussed in the article, to be a rationalist with respect to some subject/discourse area ...[text shortened]... ome better articles at home but cannot seem to find any free links to them online at the moment.

I don't know, maybe he does mean rationalization 😉.

Something like either the sensus divinitatis position or the position that we have innate knowledge of God does seem to be an undercurrent. I frequently get this argumentum ad natis nequam [1], type of debating point from the more evangelically minded Christians here. The position of wilful rebellion does seem to appear (cf. GrampyBobby's references to "negative volition".). It was natural to wonder if it was a rhetorical strategy or an intrinsic part of their theology.

My reading list seems to be diverging super-exponentially at the moment, so the equivalent of an encyclopedia entry is ideal. Plantinga is a good writer, if anyone can produce a coherent argument about this then probably it is he.

[1] argument to naughty [or worthless] children - I'm not absolutely sure of the Latin. Natus is a word for child but there are others. The Google online translators wants to render naughty as lasciva but it means playful not naughty and connotes something sexual in English which isn't my intention. It wants child as puerorum, but I want something more gender neutral (natus is male but less obviously so).

Originally posted by OdBod
"No amount of good works is going to be enough" ? I'm happy to be an Atheist.

Don't know why you'd say that? You think you can earn your way into
God's Kingdom by doing good works? You also prefer that to knowing that
God gave you His righteousness in Christ so you could make it on His work
instead of yours?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Don't know why you'd say that? You think you can earn your way into
God's Kingdom by doing good works? You also prefer that to knowing that
God gave you His righteousness in Christ so you could make it on His work
instead of yours?

I feel this is relevant to the main discussion. Suppose there were an atheist, accidental or otherwise, who was as humanly moral as is possible. They work their socks off for the betterment of mankind, never a harsh word, etc.. Would they really be rejected by God solely for their disbelief. You can treat accidental atheism (for example an Australian aborigine (*) before the discovery of Australia) and deliberate atheists (those that have heard of Christianity but don't believe it) separately.

(*) I know little about Australian aboriginal religion, I believe it is largely Animist, but one can imagine a culture that has never heard of Christ and has no religion.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If a god sticks its hypothetical finger down to me and goes "Donald, this is how it is'.......

Fine. Another human telling me.....

http://melikedesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/yogi-berra-inspirational-quotes-for-graduates-momme.jpg

Originally posted by DeepThought
I feel this is relevant to the main discussion. Suppose there were an atheist, accidental or otherwise, who was as humanly moral as is possible. They work their socks off for the betterment of mankind, never a harsh word, etc.. Would they really be rejected by God solely for their disbelief. You can treat accidental atheism (for example an Australian ...[text shortened]... rgely Animist, but one can imagine a culture that has never heard of Christ and has no religion.

But your supposition assumes accountability in an example where no accountability actually exists. An expectation of accountability is dependent on what we are able to know. The bible specifically addresses this point:

To whom much is given much will be required... In other words, you can't legitimately (or realistically) be judged according to what you are unable to know. So failing a test for acceptance would have to come about for some other reason, such as willfully harming someone or hiding an intent to do harm. Jesus made it clear that only those who do Gods will are acceptable, so acceptability isn't necessarily contingent on knowing everything about the God of the bible. This means an aborigine who has no knowledge of God can still be judged according to his own innate understanding of what is good and acceptable. Success or failure isn't necessarily dependent on knowledge and ability because the demands and expectations of legalism were nailed to the cross.

Satan didn't fail because he was unable to do what it takes to be acceptable, he failed because he regarded something else as having more importance.

Originally posted by lemon lime
But your supposition assumes accountability in an example where no accountability actually exists. An expectation of accountability is dependent on what we are able to know. The bible specifically addresses this point:

To whom much is given much will be required... In other words, you can't legitimately (or realistically) be judged according to ...[text shortened]... to be acceptable, he failed because he regarded something else as having more importance.

So, it would appear from this that your position is that knowledge of God is not innate and that a good atheist [1], who has not heard of Christianity, can enter into heaven based on their works and general behaviour?

What is your position regarding those who have heard of Christianity and are basically good people, they just don't believe in God, are they damned solely for not believing?

[1] Because of the way humans work I'm not sure that atheism is the default position some atheists would like it to be. I'm not convinced there is such a thing as an implicit atheist. We each develop our own theory of mind, meaning that because I think I assume that you do. Animism is based on that extended to the rest of creation. So for an animist places have a genius (in the ancient Roman sense). I think that it is the natural "religion" of humans. Someone left to their own devices in this regard, from a sufficiently early age, would develop an animistic view of the world.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I feel this is relevant to the main discussion. Suppose there were an atheist, accidental or otherwise, who was as humanly moral as is possible. They work their socks off for the betterment of mankind, never a harsh word, etc.. Would they really be rejected by God solely for their disbelief. You can treat accidental atheism (for example an Australian ...[text shortened]... rgely Animist, but one can imagine a culture that has never heard of Christ and has no religion.

There a couple of hard facts scripturally, one of the first is that we are all
sinners. That said, we will be condemn for that, so to compare ourselves
to ourselves may find who is the best of the bunch, but it is of a bunch that
all have all ready been found wanting!

According to scripture all us will be without excuse before God, He has
made Himself known to us all. With respect to the Law and man we do by
nature those things found within the Law, so we will be a law unto ourselves
and even there we will fail, which would be failing by those rules we do
acknowledge before God and man.

If we don't have the righteousness of God we will be left in our own, or if
we put our trust and faith in something or someone else than we will be
go as far as those things take us.

Originally posted by KellyJay
According to scripture all us will be without excuse before God, He has
made Himself known to us all.

Hasn't the Hindu God also "made Himself known to us all", as you put it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
There a couple of hard facts scripturally, one of the first is that we are all
sinners. That said, we will be condemn for that, so to compare ourselves
to ourselves may find who is the best of the bunch, but it is of a bunch that
all have all ready been found wanting!

According to scripture all us will be without excuse before God, He has
made Himsel ...[text shortened]... trust and faith in something or someone else than we will be
go as far as those things take us.

So even what I called accidental atheists have no excuse?

Originally posted by DeepThought
So, it would appear from this that your position is that knowledge of God is not innate and that a good atheist [1], who has not heard of Christianity, can enter into heaven based on their works and general behaviour?

What is your position regarding those who have heard of Christianity and are basically good people, they just don't believe in God, are ...[text shortened]... ces in this regard, from a sufficiently early age, would develop an animistic view of the world.

So, it would appear from this that your position is that knowledge of God is not innate...

No, I'm saying it is innate. There doesn't necessarily have to be a clearly defined understanding of God for understanding the difference between good and evil, even in the most primitive form. Otherwise I would have to assume any primitive people (not exposed to knowledge of God) are incapable of discerning good from bad, and would be unable to develop a code of ethics or morality. No code of ethics or morality would be the natural result of an inability to make a distinction between what is good and bad (evil), thus leading to a chaotic and unsustainable way of life.

The fact that Australian aborigines are able to sustain their way of life from one generation to the next is in itself evidence of them having this sort of innate understanding.