Christian faith is not an intelligence test but a test of our will, which is reflected in divinely-inspired wisdom (there is no other),...
But if you assume (by faith, for example) the Christian position is correct, you will end up demonstrating that the Christian position is, well, correct. No other outcome is possible. This doesn't help.
It must be borne in mind ,therefore, that what the secular version of intelligence defines potentially encompasses the deepest idiocy and darkest malice. In fact, in order for it to have positive value, the analytical, essentially worldly, intelligence must be founded and suffused with the light of the Holy Spirit.
I'd like to see that conclusion demonstrated without an initial leap...
I don't find it intuitively obvious or logically necessary when given more time and thought.
This is made clear throughout the Bible. And indeed there are reasons to believe that we all know God exists, and even existed before we were born in this world.
"This is the bible's position", is fine. including the idea that "we all
know God exists,"
That transfers the ground for certainty elsewhere.
Personally I disagree with Paul in Romans 1, and can look at nature and the night sky and see at the very least the clear possibility of a cold, indifferent uncaring universe.
One might start with the impact craters on the moon, perhaps.
It's not at all uncommon for otherwise quite sophisticated atheists to say, 'Well if I were God, I wouldn't allow such horrible things to happen!' What I call their 'argument from petulance'. In fact, it has been found that atheists are more bitter about God than believers. Of course, if they didn't believe God exists, they wouldn't get so emotional about it. Atheism is a fundamentalist religion; agnosticism, evidently not fundamentalist.
Atheists may indeed raise variants of the problem of evil, though rarely in such a caricature manner.
It's legitimate in the course of a hypothetical argument centred on "does the world and nature, as we see it, correspond to the proposed concept of an omnipotent and benevolent deity?"
On that basis I think I can make a better case for a capricious or malicious deity than for a benevolent loving one.
I don't then use that as a basis for ranting at an "evil god" because I'm an atheist. I use it as an argument against the existence of a loving god.
There may indeed be some "atheists" who genuinely rage at "an unfair God", but it is plain here that they are actually rebellious or hurt theists.
However, secular knowledge-faith forms a continuum corresponding with space-time. An example of secular knowledge-faith would be: When I come into a room, I cannot be certain that when I switch on the wall-switch, the light will come on, but I know it is highly likely and act accordingly... ....Without accepting a modicum of authority regarding much of our knowledge would then lead to such a potentially infinite regress.
Agreed without cavil. The problem tends to arise (in secular and faith beliefs, I would say) when the "certain enough for day-to-day purposes, though there is tiny bit of unavoidable epistemological doubt" hardens through familiar use of the practical approximation and short-cut to "absolutely certain."
A Christian faith-knowledge continuum corresponds with our secular one; they co-inhere, informing each other. However, when we, Christians, are 'under the blackjack', so to speak, being sorely tried, the temptation to discard our faith-knowledge concerning Christ and his teachings will manifest in our sorry wee hearts!
And why not? I do not grasp how this faith-knowledge acquires immunity from either questioning or legitimate doubt.
But I have had all too many conversations where that has been held, and it's a stopper to any further discussion, except perhaps for an attempt to show the individual that they would most likely regard the position as unreasonable, or to be dismissed, should anyone adopt the same stance in respect of some other faith-belief-commitment.
But since this life is not a (secular) intelligence test, but a spiritual one...
here I disagree, so I'll take that as coming from the Christian world-view...
So, faith in the Christian sense implies a considerable element of commitment, the nature of which has changed in different epochs.
Absolutely agreed, though I'd suggest it's something that has to be regularly reminded of and renewed wherever Christianity has become a large majority or a state religion in a country. For there it can shade over time into cultural background and habit and "what normal, conforming, people do".
Commitment, however, does not settle truth. Or all single-minded dedicated believers would be in one accord, which is manifestly not the case. The content of these unshakable beliefs can vary disastrously (secular and religious instances abound.)
There's no added reliability or truth-testing that I can see that comes with faith.
The appearance and sense of such from the inside, from within the faith position, that is clear.
But that emerges, once again, independent of the content of that faith-belief.
Chris