The real religion?

[Crossless2.0]

This post adequately demonstrates the sleight-of-hand Christians indulge in when they play the Plantinga 'properly basic' card. Whether belief in God (or, more accurately, a god) is properly basic is debatable but of no particular concern to me. If that's all you claim, Steve, then you are in exactly the same boat as any other theist, of any stripe, should they make the same claim. But that's not what you're up to, is it? Captial-G god (your god) is not believed in by way of intuition. It comes with a baggage train of claims concerning its qualities that are derived from your holy book. Belief in the Christian god cannot, by its nature, be properly basic and you have done nothing to bridge the chasm between a deist god (which might, arguably, be basic) and your god, except to repeat claims nobody else is buying. If we did, we'd be Christians.

You are correct. You do not get to the specific God of Christianity by intuition. Of course you need the details filled in. It is another argument in the cumulative case for the existence of God. The reason I think it worth talking about is that it illustrates why billions of people might believe on evidence that someone like yourself does not find compelling.

What's really worth discussing is why billions of people set such low standards for what they'll accept as good evidence for what they claim is the most important of questions -- standards so low they don't seem to apply them to any other aspects of their lives.