Instead the experience serves merely as an event to trigger the innate ideas of their various emotions.
I turn now to my second premise which states that the idea of God's existence is innate. To best explain this premise, let's assume the idea of God's existence is not innate. With this assumption made, the premise must be supported with a posteriori, or empirical, evidence. In order to obtain this empirical evidence, we would need to have knowledge based on experience of God. Human beings cannot have a posteriori knowledge of God because God's characteristics are infinite In order for human beings to completely understand a being that is infinite, they must possess an intellect that is also infinite. The human intellect is not infinite because humans make errors, and if humans make errors, then it is possible for errors to be made in judgements. Hence, a posteriori evidence about God is not possible. But if there is no a posteriori evidence about God, where does the idea of God's existence come from? Innate, experience-independent knowledge. .
The third premise satisfies the requirements for the modus ponens deductive form incorporated in this argument. That it, because the idea of God's existence is innate, it follows that empirical evidence is not required to prove God's existence. In "Without Evidence or Argument", Kelly James Clark makes a similar argument by suggesting that the belief is God's existence without evidence or argument is rational. To support his argument, he refers to the work of John Calvin in which Calvin states, "it is not a doctrine that must be first learned in school, but one of which each of us is master from his mother's womb and which nature itself permits no one to forget" (141). Clark goes on to further support his argument by stating that "if God created us with cognitive faculties which by and large reliably produce beliefs without the need for evidence, he would likewise provide us with a cognitive faculty which produces belief in him without the need for evidence" (141).
