The question I will be addressing in this paper will be regarding whether the existence of God can be a true belief without empirical evidence. I will use a deductive argument to prove how the idea of God's existence can be true without empirical evidence. In addition, I will also refer to "Without Evidence or Argument" by Kelly James Clarks and "Miracles and Testimony" by Simon Blackburn to provide further support of my argument. .
The first premise of my arguments states that innate ideas do not require empirical evidence. There has been a withstanding debate among psychologists regarding whether human beings are born with innate ideas or whether they develop these ideas through experience. Emotions, such as happiness; excitement; and apprehension, are all instilled within people at birth. No one has to tell you, "you just got shot, you should be experiencing pain" because these are natural ideas that do not require previous experience in order for them to be true. Take for example two toddlers who are playing with each other on a playground. The children are enjoying themselves until one of them throws a rock at the other one. The child begins to scream in agony because they are in pain. The other child becomes overwhelmed with anxiety, and may begin to think: I did not mean to hurt him; we were only playing. The process whereby this scenario occurs does not require the understanding and constant reflection of the children upon their actions. When the children are playing they do not think to themselves "wow, we are really happy" or when the child gets hits with the rocks he does not think "I just got hit with a rock which means I should be experiencing pain". The reason being is because these ideas of happiness and apprehension are not taught to the children, they are simply natural and innate. They do not require empirical, or experience-based, evidence for them to be true, for this may have been the first injury the child sustained, yet they know that they are in pain.
