What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[vorlon13]

[vorlon13]

[Neo-Scholastic]

Unless you can demonstrate that God could create a perfect world, then the objection does not work. That is why no one takes it seriously.

[Brian37]

Unless you can demonstrate that God could create a perfect world, then the objection does not work.  That is why no one takes it seriously.

Unless you can demonstrate that Allah could create a perfect world....
Unless you can demonstrate that Yahweh could create a perfect world.......
Unless you can demonstrate that Buddha could create a perfect Nirvana....
Unless you can demonstrate Bhrama could create a perfect world......

We don't care, you are still stuck with "which club, which holy writing".

[Harry Nevis]

Unless you can demonstrate that God could create a perfect world, then the objection does not work.  That is why no one takes it seriously.

Sure it does.  Because you can't demonstrate god.  One fantasy is as good as another.

[vorlon13]

Unless you can demonstrate that God could create a perfect world, then the objection does not work.  That is why no one takes it seriously.

Suddenly and without warning, Vorlon's heresy detector explodes !!!

[Mister Agenda]

A properly basic belief does not require justification. However, in order for a properly basic belief to have warrant, it must be held after weighing it against possible defeaters.

Belief does not require shit. Sell a kid  Santa before they can figure out the parents are the gift givers and they swallow it. 

Knowledge and facts require kicking the tires and the ability to go where the evidence leads and the ability to accept when you got it wrong. The rest is a like.

I think he means a 'properly basic belief' as an axiom, like 'A is A' or 'reality is real'. Not provable, but too useful as assumptions to discard. Of course, someone who is reasonably skeptical would want to keep those to a minimum, building your beliefs on too many assumptions is betting against the house when it comes to having rationally justified true beliefs. For most of us, there is an unspoken ground to our reasoning, an 'extra premise' that precedes the spoken one.

If A is A, and
All men are mortal, and
Socrates is a man, then
Socrates is mortal.

---

Belief does not require shit. Sell a kid  Santa before they can figure out the parents are the gift givers and they swallow it. 

Knowledge and facts require kicking the tires and the ability to go where the evidence leads and the ability to accept when you got it wrong. The rest is a like.

Most people believe that their vivid memories are generally reliable until shown otherwise. If there are no good reasons to suppose otherwise then those beliefs qualify as knowledge.

They qualify as knowledge to you. They qualify as hearsay when you repeat them to others without corroborating evidence. It may be plausible hearsay or implausible hearsay, but it's not considered 'generally reliable' because people misremember, misreport, exaggerate, minimize, and outright lie. But if you remember tying your shoelaces this morning, that qualifies as knowledge for you and if you tell me about it, it qualifies as plausible hearsay to me.

---

Unless you can demonstrate that God could create a perfect world, then the objection does not work.  That is why no one takes it seriously.

So the leg you cut short on the three-legged stool of theodicy is God's supposed omnipotence. I commend you, the folks who go after God's supposed omnibenevolence worry me.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Unless you can demonstrate that God could create a perfect world, then the objection does not work.  That is why no one takes it seriously.

So the leg you cut short on the three-legged stool of theodicy is God's supposed omnipotence. I commend you, the folks who go after God's supposed omnibenevolence worry me.

Not at all. Because it's an argument from ignorance, it does not work as a defeater. God is omnipotent in the sense that He is able to do anything that it possible to do. In order the problem of evil to work as a defeater, it must also show that a better world is possible. Since it does not, the force of the argument is not logical; but rather, emotional.


Fixed that for you...

[downbeatplumb]

God was complete dick in the book of job.

Job. Other than a shit-ton of babies, no one had it worse in the Bible than Job, who was a righteous, good-hearted man who believed in God with every fiber in his being — which is when God decides to see how miserable he can make this dude before he gets upset. Note: This is a result of a bet between God and Satan. Also note: The bet is God's idea. He's literally just hanging out with Satan — which is kinda weird when you think about it — when he starting bragging about how awesome Job is. Satan points out that Job's pretty blessed — he's rich, he's got a lot of kids, etc., and he probably wouldn't be quite so thrilled with God if he didn't have that stuff. God downs his bourbon, presumably, and tells Satan he can fuck with Job all he wants. Satan does. He kills all of Job's children and animals, burns down his house, destroys his wealth, and then covers him in boils. Job doesn't not curse God, but he does wish he'd never been born (literally) and begs God to kill him, but no dice. This lasts a long time until finally Job wonders why a just God would be so shitty. This is when God pops up and basically tells him."Shut up, I don't have to explain anything to you." Job, having finally done something wrong, pleads for mercy, and God eventually gives him back animals and children — new ones, because the old ones are still dead. Because of a bet. That God made with Satan. For kicks. (Job 1)

http://io9.gizmodo.com/gods-12-biggest-d...1522970429

[Neo-Scholastic]

Again, Professor Plumb, you are not making a logical argument; but rather, appealing to emotions of incredulity and moral outrage. You give no consideration to the idea that God may have had perfectly good reasons, however inexplicable to us, for what Job experienced.