Traditionally, the idea of God has been viewed as an innate, intrinsic part of the human psyche.

This view has been very common among people, especially those of a theistic viewpoint. Many people believe that humans are aware of a God (whether he exists or not) from the first moment of their life, right through to their deaths. This means that a newborn child has an innate idea of God.

The majority of the supporters of this idea are theistic. The philosopher Leibniz agreed with this viewpoint, though he believed that innate ideas have to be triggered by experience in order to surface. Philosophers such as Plato argued that all ideas are innate to us, but need to be triggered. Although he doesnt directly support the view that the idea of god is innate, he does agree that some ideas are innate. If some ideas are innate is it really much of a leap to ask if the ideas of god are innate?

There are many different people who are against this viewpoint. For example, many empiricists, such as John Locke, believe that man is born tabula rasa; he has no knowledge or concepts at birth, and derives everything he knows from experience, later in life. Empiricists therefore are strongly against the idea that the concept of god is innate within us.

One very strong argument against innateness is given when we look at case studies of feral children. There are several examples of children who grew up independently of human influence. These cases are rare, but when they do occur it shows that nothing is truly innate as these children are only rarely able to pick up language, and they certainly don't have a concept of God.

Descartes, a French philosopher, put forward one of the most well known arguments for innateness: the trademark argument. This argument is firstly based on the proverb Cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am This proverb (by Descartes himself) follows the argument that since we can think we must exist. He then uses this as the basis for his trademark argument.

The trademark argument in its basest form, says that god has put an idea of himself in our minds and goes as follows: 1 I exist 2 I have ideas. 3 My ideas must have causes. However, due to the fact that the only thing I can be certain of is my own existence, I cannot be sure that the things which I believe cause my ideas have in fact actually caused my ideas. My ideas could be (unknowingly) a construct of my own imagination. 4 Any effect cannot be greater than that which caused it. 5 My idea of God is that of a perfect being. Since I am imperfect, I cannot have fabricated this idea of perfection, and neither could any thing else that is imperfect. 6 Since my idea of god is perfect, and effects cannot be greater than their causes, only a perfect cause could have given me the idea of perfection. That cause is God.

Problem 1: Descartes tries to compare objects and ideas in his trademark argument, when in fact they are very different things. This leads to confusion as objects have obvious and straightforward causes, ideas do not. Just because an idea is perfect doesnt mean it was caused by a perfect being.

The trademark argument is not a logically sufficient proof for the existence of god, or the fact that he has put an idea of himself in us as an innate quality. The majority of logical arguments for innateness are insufficient, and the logical arguments against are more convincing. Therefore the best reason to believe in innateness is faith, and this seems only suitable for those among us who are theistic.