Why I'm not an Atheist and believe in what I believe.

[Annik]

By intuitive knowledge, do you mean social cues?

[Mystic]

By intuitive knowledge, do you mean social cues?

No, but can you elaborate on your point?

[Brian37]

Assume a Creator exists.

You know what happens when you "assume"? It makes an ass out of u and me.

That is not how good logic works.

Good logic and scientific method for that matter starts with prior established data. Otherwise there are an infinite number of absurdities we as a species can "assume" by default.

The ability to string sentences together and vocalize them and write them down, may make them pretty and popular, but without some sort of quality control of testing and independent verification, wont make them credible.

Think about all the super natural and or deity claims past and present that you do not hold to be true and think about why you reject them. If you are honest enough with yourself and bold enough with yourself, you hopefully will get to the point to understand why I reject your claim as well.

[Annik]

By intuitive knowledge, do you mean social cues?

No, but can you elaborate on your point?

Well, we learn morality through social cues, not intuition. Babies aren't born with morals, they are taught to them. This is how our morals are able to evolve (for the most part) with the times. Babies are not born as theists, either. Religion has to be taught to them.

[Welsh cake]

That's not good enough. Intuitions can often be wrong.

What would be good enough in your view?

A more disciplined route or method, such as invoking the phrase "to best of our knowledge" which underlines familiarity, awareness, and/or understanding that's gained through experience and/or study.

While you can still be wrong, its far more reliable than simple intuition, and prevents you from making invalid casual connections and erroneous assumptions about reality.

[Mystic]

Assume a Creator exists.

You know what happens when you "assume"? It makes an ass out of u and me.

That is not how good logic works.

Good logic and scientific method for that matter starts with prior established data. Otherwise there are an infinite number of absurdities we as a species can "assume" by default.

The ability to string sentences together and vocalize them and write them down, may make them pretty and popular, but without some sort of quality control of testing and independent verification, wont make them credible.

Think about all the super natural and or deity claims past and present that you do not hold to be true and think about why you reject them. If you are honest enough with yourself and bold enough with yourself, you hopefully will get to the point to understand why I reject your claim as well.

Relax my friend.

It was just to explain that if God exists, then intuitive knowledge of him is not illogical.

That doesn't prove we have knowledge of God nor did I say it did.

---

No, but can you elaborate on your point?

Well, we learn morality through social cues, not intuition. Babies aren't born with morals, they are taught to them. This is how our morals are able to evolve (for the most part) with the times. Babies are not born as theists, either. Religion has to be taught to them.

Ok, I see what your saying. You think society decides morals because it's moral or is it moral because society decided it's moral?

Thanks.

---

What would be good enough in your view?

A more disciplined route or method, such as invoking the phrase "to best of our knowledge" which underlines familiarity, awareness, and/or understanding that's gained through experience and/or study.

While you can still be wrong, its far more reliable than simple intuition, and prevents you from making invalid casual connections and erroneous assumptions about reality.

OK I see, but what if proof of God is not possible through experience or study? What should God do if he exists? How would he make us know himself if he wanted to be known?

[Panglossian]

You claim to have intuitive knowledge, yet without the teachings of others you would be totally ignorant of the concept of a creator. No knowledge can originate within oneself.

What about logic?

Logic is basically reasoning via the evaluation of certain facts to reach a decisive conclusion. It is not knowledge itself, but rather a tool for aquiring it.
The concept was established by Aristotle as a mode of problem solving. Therefore, logically (see what I did there? ), we can deduce it to be impossible for us to be born with the ability to form analytical expositions.
Hope this answers your question

[Mystic]

Logic is basically reasoning via the evaluation of certain facts to reach a decisive conclusion. It is not knowledge itself, but rather a tool for aquiring it.
The concept was established by Aristotle; logic was invented by humans. Therefore, logically (see what I did there? ), we can deduce it to be impossible for us to be born with the ability to form analytical expositions.
Hope this answers your question

I disagree with your analysis. Logic is both knowledge and a tool and we have it built in us. We just learn to process it and apply it later.

Also, it's all intuitive and properly basic. Yet we know for certainty it is correct.

Whether it was acquired or not, it's intuitive knowledge.

[Annik]

Well, we learn morality through social cues, not intuition. Babies aren't born with morals, they are taught to them. This is how our morals are able to evolve (for the most part) with the times. Babies are not born as theists, either. Religion has to be taught to them.

Ok, I see what your saying. You think society decides morals because it's moral or is it moral because society decided it's moral?

Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27...evelopment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget...f_morality

Here is some insight into moral development. Cultures decide morals more than society on the whole. The morals in the US are different from the morals in the UK, just as the morals in the UK are different from morals in Japan.

[Mystic]

Ok, I see what your saying. You think society decides morals because it's moral or is it moral because society decided it's moral?

Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27...evelopment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget...f_morality

Here is some insight into moral development. Cultures decide morals more than society on the whole. The morals in the US are different from the morals in the UK, just as the morals in the UK are different from morals in Japan.

So which one of the two is it?

Societies decides morals because they are morals or are they morals because society decided them to be morals?

I think it's neither. I think some of societies decisions reflect morals as they ought to be, and some don't. But this only possible with the view that morals are not just social cues.